Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Considered; to he read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Continental Shelf (Exploration Drilling)

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of exploration drilling on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): During the first five months of 1988 a total of 75 exploration and appraisal wells were started, compared with only 40 in the same period last year. Exploration well starts alone have risen from 18 in the first five months of 1987 to 27 in the corresponding period this year.

Mr. Key: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming a Privy Councillor. That is very good news. Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the models used to calculate the net present value, because some of the oil companies are very concerned about that calculation for

the southern North sea? It would he a shame to do anything to disturb the very good upward and upbeat trend.

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is not here today because, as hon. Members know, he is leading a very important industrial mission to China.
I have heard the points made by some oil companies. They have discussed them with me. They are very much in favour of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in many parts of the Budget. However, they have one or two points to make and they are being discussed with me and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I add my congratulations and those of my colleagues in the SNP-Plaid Cymru group to the Minister on the honour that he has received. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that there will be a spin off to the oil fabrication yards of the renewed activity in the North sea sector, particularly in view of the difficulties at Ardersier?

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. She and one or two other hon. Members put points to me when they came to see me the other day. There is concern about the amount of work available in the fabrication yards. As I said then, the current level of activity—drilling and appraisal—and the number of developments that I have been able to approve this year mean that the outlook for the yards is better than it would otherwise have been.

National Union of Mineworkers

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet officials of the National Union of Mineworkers; and what matters will be discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): My right hon. Friend and I are


always willing to respond to requests for meetings by trade unions from the energy industries. No such request has been received from the NUM.)

Mr. Patchett: The Minister regularly refers to or asserts the great future for coal in this country, yet he has never met representatives of the work force to hear their opinions, fears and concerns. Why is there this lack of interest? Is it because, as we suspect, the greatest interest lies in imported coal rather than in the British coal industry?

Mr. Spicer: We regularly meet members of the UDM because they have asked on many occasions—

Mr. Patchett: Scabs.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman may call them scabs, but they represent a very large proportion of the British Coal work force. That shows his prejudices in asking this question. We have never wanted to encourage imports. We have said that a privatised electricity industry will be able to buy in the best market.

Mr. Hind: If my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the UDM and NUM, will he emphasise to them the importance of the participation of the unions in the mining industry in the Government's employment training programme? In future, that will fill a necessary gap in skills in the mining industry and throughout industry.

Mr. Spicer: I will certainly pass on to British Coal the points that my hon. Friend has raised. There is no doubt that training in all aspects of industry, including mining, is very important.

Mr. Redmond: If the Minister receives a request from the NUM, will he agree to a meeting and discuss with the union the privatisation plans as they stand to date?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member speaks about privatisation plans, but the Government have made it clear that there are no plans to privatise the coal industry before the next general election. However, as has also been said, the Government are considering the possibilities for private capital to play a greater role in the industry. If the NUM wishes to discuss that, and the prospects that it might create for new jobs, we shall be willing to hold such discussions.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my hon. Friend next meets officials of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he tell them that miners in Nottinghamshire have five times broken their own productivity record? Will he point out what a tremendous tribute that is to the collieries' men and management, and that such an achievement gives the best possible guarantee for the long-term future of the British coal industry?

Mr. Spicer: It there were to be a meeting with the NUM, I certainly would convey the points that my hon. Friend has just made. However, as mention has been made of foreign imports, I would have to accompany those sentiments with the advice that foreign competitors, particularly the United States and Australia, continue to enjoy a productivity rate three times higher than our national average.

Mr. Skinner: If the Minister does meet officials of the UDM, will he tell them that they were very successfully used by the Coal Board and by the Government during the

miners' strike? They were promised roses all the way for combining with the Tory Government. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances he felt it necessary to connive with the British Coal management to shut the pits in Nottinghamshire—in other words, to say to those UDM members who formed the bosses' union, "We will use you when it suits us but we will also drop you when it suits us—and we shall sack you in the process"?

Mr. Spicer: No, it is unlikely that I would say very much of that to officials of the UDM. I would say to them that the UDM, far from being a "bosses' union" has been extremely tough, not in debating politics with British Coal, but in debating the interests of its members. As a result, the UDM is getting better deals for its members than is the NUM in many cases.

British Coal

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what he expects to discuss.

Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what topics were discussed.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Adley: Notwithstanding the fact that I had a tooth fall out during lunch, is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Transport, in announcing his willingness to accept closure of the Settle to Carlisle line, said that every Government Department would do its best to see that the line stayed open? As British Coal has a vested interest in selling coal for use by the steam locomotives travelling on that line, and as it has already made substantial contributions in that regard, will my hon. Friend take an opportunity to discuss with British Coal the need to co-operate with the Government's efforts to keep the Settle to Carlisle line open?

Mr. Spicer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the subject of the Settle to Carlisle line under this question, particularly given the fact that one of his teeth fell out on his way to the Chamber. I commiserate with him. British Coal has sponsored a number of steam train runs on the Settle to Carlisle line. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views are made known to the chairman of British Coal, but, as my hon. Friend will know, British Coal is not in a strong financial position to do very much more.

Mr. Michael Welsh: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss coal supply, and whether it is better to buy British rather than foreign coal? Will he make it plain to the chairman that he would not like to see foreign coal imported cheaply in the short run, if, when it runs out, the domestc coal industry will be unable to supply our needs?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, which will no doubt be borne in mind by those who are laying contracts for coal on behalf of the electricity


industry. One of the great advantages that British Coal has in any negotiations about buying coal is that the spot market may change in the future. A number of analysts say that it could well rise. British Coal is able to provide on a secure basis, which foreigners may not be able to do. World coal prices, however, are considerably lower than British coal prices, and there is therefore an onus on British Coal to make itself fully competitive, which we believe it should be able to do.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend has made it clear that competitiveness is one of the matters that he would discuss with the chairman of British Coal, so that, if given the go-ahead. British Coal could supply coal to Fawley B power station. I hope that the power station is not built. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend not regard it as an act of gross contempt by the CEGB to place orders for the generators before the public inquiry—which he has now sanctioned—into whether it will be built, has even started its sessions?

Mr. Spicer: I understand that my hon. Friend is right in that certain design contracts have been placed for generators, but it is for the CEGB to take a view on whether the risks involved in placing them—with, no doubt, penalties attached if it does not go through with them—are worth taking. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the inquiry has not even begun. Certainly the Government's view is that the contracts would in no way prejudice the outcome of the inquiry, one way or the other.

Mr. Morgan: As a change from questions from toothless Tory Back Benchers, may I ask the Minister whether, if he agrees to the meeting with the chairman of British Coal, he will discuss with him the implications for the coal burn of the statement made in the business section of The Sunday Times yesterday and attributed to the heads of British Steel in a press briefing to City journalists in Port Talbot last Wednesday?
British Steel said that it was thinking seriously about buying its electricity direct from the generators, thus cutting out the electricity board, and possibly buying indirectly from the French nuclear electricity industry. Does the Minister realise that if British Steel does that, its private sector steel competitors, which use the electric arc method, will almost certainly do so as well? That would mean that 30 per cent. of the market for the South Wales electricity board would disappear overnight. What would be the consequences for the domestic electricity consumer in south Wales?

Mr. Spicer: Let me say first that anyone who has had to answer questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will know that he is not toothless. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman was referring to, but his description cannot be applied to my hon. Friend.
The question whether a large customer could buy direct from the generating company under a privatised industry is one that we are considering very carefully, in view of the privatisation and the regulations that we shall have to make. My prejudice, however, is in favour of allowing for the maximum competition and, if big consumers wish to buy direct from certain suppliers, to allow them to do so. That would put good competitive pressure on what are otherwise pretty well monopolist bodies—the local regional electricity board companies.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest contributions that could be made to the stability of the coal industry would be to give individual miners the opportunity of a substantial capital stake in their industry? Will he at an early stage have discussions with the chairman of British Coal, in the first instance to provide an opportunity for the miners to buy out pits that British Coal considers uneconomic?

Mr. Spicer: We have said that we are reviewing the limits to private capital currently imposed on the industry. The deep mines to which I think my hon. Friend was referring are limited to 30 men underground. I cannot yet tell my hon. Friend the result of the review.

Mr. Barron: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he explain to him why Hinkley C PWR is not to be judged economically against coal, or even British coal? It is to be judged economically only against renewables. Will he explain in detail to the chairman of British Coal why, under the privatisation plans, he is willing to cosset nuclear energy but not coal, although productivity in the British coal industry is good?

Mr. Spicer: We are not comparing like with like. Coal accounts for between 60 and 70 per cent. of all the sources of energy in this country, so, whatever happens, we are talking about a vast market. All that we have said is that in the interests of security and variety of supply we wish to ensure that there is a minimum level of non-fossil-based fuel sources in this country. To that extent, we shall ensure that a non-fossil-based fuel source exists in the future.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the key priorities for energy efficiency in the next decade; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I recently announced that the energy efficiency office is entering a fresh phase. It will run a targeted regional service of advice and support for industry and commerce. At the same time it will continue to help the domestic consumer, through the community insulation programme and research into energy efficiency in housing.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major initiative taken by the building societies to promote energy efficiency among home owners is a major contribution towards energy efficiency in this country?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I put the proposition to the building societies about four months ago and said that this was something that we could do together. What particularly pleased me was the reaction of the Building Societies Association and the fact that all the major building societies are now taking part.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the fresh phase for the energy efficiency office is a cut in the budget from £24 million to £15 million and that there is to be no major promotional advertising campaign by the office in the following year? Is the Minister telling the House that energy surveys are no longer necessary because people have somehow magically learnt the lessons that the energy efficiency office was set up to teach?

Mr. Morrison: I can confirm that the campaigns of the energy efficiency office will be specifically targeted. The success of the monergy campaign has been such that I believe that the general message has got across. There is awareness in industry, commerce and the domestic household of the need for and the advantages of saving energy. As for the survey schemes, half of those who have taken them up say that they would have done it anyway, without any input from the taxpayer. That seems to be a wrong use of taxpayers' money, so there will therefore be a reduction in the use of taxpayers' money for that purpose.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest contribution to improved energy efficiency over the next decade can come from improved thermal efficiency in electricity production—from the present 35 per cent. that is achievable for electricity-only production to the 80 per cent. potential that is achievable when heat that would otherwise be wasted is used?

Mr. Morrison: I note what my hon. Friend says about combined heat and power, and we take it very seriously. The benefits that will result from competition in a privatised industry will lead to improved efficiency.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition are stunned and overjoyed to read of the honour that has recently been conferred upon him? However, does he agree that he is not being entirely frank with the House, in that there is to be a cut of one third in his Department's expenditure on energy saving programmes next year, and more the year after, and that this is hardly the time to embark on such a cut? A recent EEC study shows that Britain has made virtually no progress on energy saving since 1983. I am sure that the Minister has read the report. Does he agree that getting building societies to hand out a few leaflets is not the way to mount a major initiative on energy saving?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman knows that at this time of year all Departments of State negotiate with the Treasury. To anticipate the outcome of those negotiations would be wholly to mislead the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not more effusive in his praise of the building societies' initiative. It will reach millions of householders and potential householders who in the past did not have such a checklist before them.

Coal Imports

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in 1987; what proportion this represented of total domestic coal consumption; and what were the comparable figures for 1982.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Some 9·8 million tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in 1987, representing 8·5 per cent. of total inland consumption. In 1982, comparable figures were 4·1 million tonnes and 3·7 per cent.

Mr. Cran: Will my hon. Friend confirm that industrial and other users should continue to have access to the cheapest sources of coal, irrespective of whether they are in

the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the United Kingdom's future international competitiveness may—I stress "may"—depend on that policy?

Mr. Spicer: I can confirm that the Government have no plans to prevent a privatised electricity industry from buying coal in the best market. We say that because we are confident that British Coal can become fully competitive so that the electricity industry will want to buy British.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister has just admitted that imports of coal have trebled in five years. How much of that coal came from South Africa? If the new port opens at Killingholme, how many miners' jobs in pits in my constituency will be lost because of massive importation of coal from South Africa, Bolivia and other countries run on cheap and slave labour?

Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, I believe that South Africa provides 0·2 per cent. of inland coal consumption and 2 per cent. of all imports. A significant proportion of imported coal is coking coal. If flexible working arrangements could be worked out between the unions and British Coal, Margam would be able to go ahead and coking coal produced there would substitute for a large proportion of imported coal.

Mr. John Marshall: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has said that he will not prevent a privatised electricity industry from buying in the cheapest market. Can he be more positive and say that he will encourage it to buy cheaply, as that would be good for customers such as pensioners, and good for employment in energy-using industries?

Mr. Spicer: The Government would much prefer coal used for electricity generation to be bought from British coal sources. We say that in the belief that British Coal should be fully competitive. We shall not prevent customers, particularly the electricity industry, from buying abroad, but we shall do everything we can to encourage and assist British Coal to become fully competitive so that it will be able to take on all corners.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Minister read the financial report on the coal industry by Prior and McCloskie, which says that, within six years, world prices will begin to rise, when British Coal prices are falling, making present-day uneconomic pits economic? Does that not expose the short-term nature of the Government's policy of encouraging large-scale imports, motivated largely by the desire to privatise a smaller, more profitable coal industry at the direct expense of Britain's long-term energy interests, redundancies and pit closures?

Mr. Spicer: Nobody who listens to the hon. Gentleman would imagine that the Government have allowed £1 billion of taxpayers' money to be spent on the industry each year, or allowed £6 billion of investment to be made in the industry. Anybody would think that the Government were allowing the industry to go out of business. Quite the converse is the case. The Government are building the industry into one that is able to take on all comers, particularly for the reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the unpredictability of the future price of coal. Coal prices may well rise. In that event, British Coal will be even more profitable than we want it to be immediately.

Continental Shelf (Oil Reserves)

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of recoverable reserves of oil on the United Kingdom continental shelf; and what were the comparable figures five and 10 years before.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The latest estimate for remaining recoverable oil reserves at the proven plus probable level is 1,290 million tonnes, which compares with previous estimates of 1,475 million tonnes made at the end of 1982, and 1,980 million tonnes made at the end of 1977.

Mr. Chapman: Does that decline of about one third during the past 10 years cause my right hon. Friend to be disappointed with the rate of success of recent exploration drilling? In view of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) earlier, will my right hon. Friend repeat to the Chancellor that the tax regime should in no way inhibit such drilling in the immediate future?

Mr. Morrison: With two years' depletion, the amount of proven and probable reserves in the North sea for both oil and gas has increased, so that trend is very encouraging. As my hon. Friend says, the amount of activity in the North sea in terms of drilling, exploration and development plans, either approved or in the pipeline, could not he more encouraging. As for his point about tax, the reaction that I receive from all the companies about the regime in terms of the economy as a whole and the tax regime in the North sea is positive. They have one or two points to make about the Chancellor's proposals and they put those fairly and forthrightly.

Mr. Skinner: If the Minister is saying that the reserves have fallen by something approaching one third during this period, does that not mean that Britain's balance of payments will worsen as a result of the ability to use those reserves and sell some of that oil abroad? If that is the case, and if there are to be dwindling receipts from oil revenue, does it not make nonsense of allowing imported coal into this country, thus making the balance of payments deficit even worse?

Mr. Morrison: Unusually, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer to the supplementary question. I said that during the past two years, despite that two years' depletion, the proven and probable reserves in oil and gas had increased. I am very encouraged by all the activity that is going on. We shall have oil and gas reserves well into the 1990s and towards the end of the 1990s at least.

coal Mining (Labour Productivity)

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since 1983–84

Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ended 28 May, deep mined revenue output was 4·36 tonnes per manshift, a new record. This represents a 79 per cent. increase on the average for 1983–84 of 2·43 tonnes.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that figure is very impressive? Can he give comparative productivity figures for other countries?

Mr. Spicer: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the figure is impressive. However, in answer to the second part of his question, British Coal's productivity is still low relative to its main international competitors. In the United States of America and in Australia, underground productivity is three times as high as the British Coal average. Clearly, there is much further to go if British Coal's deep mines are to compete effectively against international coal. We are confident that, with flexible working, they will be able to do so.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell us what the subsidy is on coal from South Africa, Columbia and Poland? Will he give us the figures of the subsidy paid by the Government to that coal industry?

Mr. Spicer: No, Sir, I do not have the figures for subsidy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had discussions privately and publicly, those figures are very difficult to get hold of, but I have no reason to believe that they are excessive.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures that he has just reported to the House about productivity, spearheaded by the Nottinghamshire coalfied, which has reduced prices to power stations by 20 per cent. in real terms, are the way to defeat foreign imports?

Mr. Spicer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the Government's strategy and objective.

Mr. Allen McKay: Should not those impressive figures lead to an expansion of deep-mined coal rather than having to import it? Is it not a fact that the number of men made redundant from the industry have helped towards that impressive output per manshift? If he believes that, will he have a word with the chairman of the Coal Board, which has owed some of my constitutents £30,000 since March and tell him to pay not only the £30,000 but the interest?

Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's last point. I agree with him entirely about the impressiveness of what has been done, which of course is due partly to the redundancies that he mentioned, but is also very much due to the massive investment in the pits, particularly pits such as Selby, which is now striking European records, let alone British records. One seam is producing 21 tonnes per manshift. That, in very large measure, is due to the enormous investment in that pit.

Mr. McLoughlin: The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House are impressive. However, does he agree that the fact that there are countries with greater productivity than the United Kingdom leaves us with some way to go to improve our productivity? Does he further agree that we could improve productivity by greater utilisation of machinery, rather than by adopting the Luddite approach of the National Union of Mineworkers, which is opposed to some of the huge investments with which we want to go ahead and which would allow greater utilisation of machinery?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the vital utilisation of machinery, particularly heavy duty machinery, in which the Government have enabled the industry to invest. I witnessed evidence of that in the


United States when I saw that the same British equipment is being used in similar geological conditions far more efficiently than here.

Mr. Speaker: No. 9.

Mr. Skinner: Where is the Secretary of State?

Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State——

Mr. Skinner: I was here.

Mr. Spicer: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has a problem with his hearing. My right hon. Friend made it clear why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present today.

Nuclear Reactors

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom electricity industry of the recent United States Government Energy Agency report regarding early retirement of nuclear reactors.

Mr. Michael Spicer: The report will no doubt be studied in this country.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that decommissioning costs are likely to form an increasing part of the cost of the nuclear cycle in the years to come and that the pulling out of the current decommissioning work at Windscale by the CEGB has caused serious delays? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will not take over any of the decommissioning costs of the nuclear industry in the years to come, thereby providing a hidden subsidy for nuclear power?

Mr. Spicer: We have yet to say publicly what we intend to do about the important issue of decommissioning costs. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerns itself specifically with operating costs and the fact that American operating costs have risen. The operating costs of British nuclear power stations are still considerably lower than those for coal-powered stations in this country.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that British engineers, particularly British nuclear engineers, always over-design for any life expectancy? Does he agree also that the closer a nuclear power station comes to the end of its initially stated design life, the easier it is to assess its future usefulness? Therefore, will he accept that there are many nuclear power stations approaching 20 years of age that might quite safely be given an extension of five, 10 or even 15 years?

Mr. Spicer: I bow to my right hon. Friend's great knowledge in these matters, but I have to tell him that the body responsible for and which therefore takes the decisions about the safe life of, nuclear power stations is the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The Government have decided to increase the number of inspectors from 120 to 140 this year, bearing in mind the decisions and investigations they have to take on board.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that the same American report highlights the unforeseen 60 per cent. increase in operating costs that are due to the regulatory controls that the Americans have imposed on the industry

and that he has assured the American nuclear industry that such costs will be lower for a privatised nuclear industry? Does he accept also the recent medical report on the link between Dounreay and Sellafield nuclear plants and leukaemia? Since such matters cause deep public concern, will he ensure that the research is carried out and that the conclusions are provided to the Hinkley B inquiry; and, if not, why not?

Mr. Spicer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the two types of regulation, but I stand to be corrected. We have never said that we want our safety regulations to be other than the best in the world. It is true that the Americans have cumbersome and bureaucratic institutions to determine price regulations, and we shall try to avoid such bureaucracy. The issue of Dounreay and leukaemia was raised in COMARE's report. It has prompted the Government to ensure that further investigations are carried out urgently. I assure the House that the report comes to no conclusions about the connection between nuclear plant, leukaemia and leukaemia clusters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that there are some coincidences. One can argue that leukaemia clusters occur in many parts of the world, notably in New Zealand, which does not have any nuclear power stations. We shall thoroughly consider this issue. If it is germane to the Hinkley inquiry, no doubt the inspector will raise it.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Library Services (Old People's Homes)

Ms. Walley: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the extent of demand for competitive tendering for library services to old people's homes.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): This service is one of several that library authorities may wish to consider contracting out to the commercial sector. Library authorities would continue to be responsible for the scope and quality of any service contracted out.

Ms. Walley: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he admit that it is ludicrous to think that money can be made out of providing a comprehensive library service for elderly people? They are very worried about the service. Has any commercial interest been shown in this disgraceful competitive tendering? If not, will he withdraw it, as the Green Paper proposes?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the purpose of the exercise. The purpose of the Green Paper and the proposals for discussing more contracting out is to improve the services for elderly people that are available in our libraries at the service points by obtaining better value for money. If a library authority decides that by tendering outside it will receive an improved service, surely that is something that the hon. Lady would welcome.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend is right—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As he has confirmed that it is still part of the Government's policy to encourage library authorities to target special needs groups, will he give the number of library service points that are available for the elderly and other special needs groups compared with 10 years ago?

Mr. Luce: There has been an increase in the number of service points for special needs groups, such as the elderly and hospitals, from 9,700 to 13,300 over the past eight years.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that what is needed are more resources for libraries. We know that the Prime Minister, and perhaps the Minister, would like our poor old-age pensioners to be stuck in their homes reading The Sun, or books by Freddie Forsyth and listening to MTV. That is not what they would want to do, any more than we should. This is nothing more than a further reading tax. The Minister is a disgrace to the library service.

Mr. Luce: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's warm support for the Green Paper proposals. One of their purposes is to increase resources for libraries.

Public Library Development Incentive Scheme

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implication for the arts of the public library development incentive scheme which he has set up; and how much funding he intends to award it in the next two years.

Mr. Luce: I have set aside £250,000 a year for the next three years for the scheme, which encourages collaborative ventures designed to lead to improved and more efficient services.

Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news? Will he say which authorities have received those awards and what activities have been covered by them?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for these collaborative schemes, which are designed to help to improve services to the public by way of their value for money and efficiency. The schemes range over a cross-section of the country, including the Cleveland county libraries project, to establish a market advice and information centre in Cleveland, and the Sheffield city libraries project, to set up a sports library and information service for the United Kingdom. There are also a number of projects in the south.

Mr. Jessel: As there are 4 million more books in our public libraries than there were in 1979, which is an impressive achievement, does my right hon. Friend think that any incentive is needed for the public to read them?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the number of books available in public libraries over the past seven years has increased from 110 million to 114 million, which shows that library services are improving. Since 1979–80 there has been an increase of 5 per cent. in library resources in real terms.

Mr. Dalyell: Will any of the money for public services in the libraries find its way to help house the Thyssen collection? What is the Government's policy?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in his attempts to raise totally different issues. I do not quite see the link between libraries and his question.

Public Libraries (Photographic Exhibitions)

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy on charging for the exhibiting of photographs in public libraries.

Mr. Luce: The decision on whether to charge is a matter for the local authorities concerned. I am suggesting no change in this policy.

Mr. Boyes: The House would have welcomed a more positive answer fron the Minister. Does he accept that libraries create opportunities for photographers to hold exhibitions, especially for youngsters who are starting off on the trail, and provide space for projects of local interest, involving local history, voluntary organisations and so on? I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in encouraging libraries to create such opportunities and, above all, to ensure that their services remain free to the customer.

Mr. Luce: As I travel around, I see a considerable number of libraries that provide special exhibitions for painting and for photography. Whether there is a charge is entirely at the discretion of the local authorities. A number of local authorities provide these services, and I welcome that.

Mr. Fisher: I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to exempt exhibitions from his obsession with raising money and charging for public library services. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, by defining a free basic public library service and responsibility as narrowly and meanly as he does in the Green Paper, he will create a two-tier, semi-privatised public library service and thereby deny to many people its full range of services? That will narrow access rather than do what the Opposition want, which is to widen it.

Mr. Luce: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to see that the purpose of this exercise is to improve the services of libraries. Those services are already of a high standard, but it will be a great day when the hon. Gentleman can at least welcome that objective. I have made it plain repeatedly that we plan to keep the basic services—book loan services and reference sevices—entirely free. As the libraries have changed in a big way in the past 10 years, with far more information at their disposal, it seems sensible that it should at least be possible for local authorities to levy charges, if they wish, in developing specialist services.

Local Theatres

Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent his policy on private funding of the arts will aid local theatres.

Mr. Luce: One hundred and six theatres have gained awards under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, while 18 have won awards under my arts marketing scheme. Theatres which are funded by the arts councils or by regional arts associations will be entitled to apply for incentive funding under the Arts Council's scheme.

Mr. Moss: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful reply and draw his attention to a local theatre in my constituency, the Angles theatre in Wisbech—to which I cordially invite him and which I hope he can attend—


which is one of only two Georgian theatres still used as a theatre, the other being at Richmond in Yorkshire. Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance as to possible funding, from either public or private funds, to carry out renovation and restoration of such theatres, which are of historical and architectural importance?

Mr. Luce: I have heard of the Angles centre at Wisbech. I know of my hon. Friend's association with it and the work that he does to support it. It is largely an amateur theatre. When professional groups go there, there is, I understand, funding from the Eastern regional arts association, which I welcome. The theatre's architectural quality is a matter more for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that a number of theatres are under threat, largely because they occupy important and valuable sites and are suitable objects of interest to developers? Does the Minister understand that he has some responsibility to preserve these buildings for future generations, who may be interested in the theatre as it has been and will be, and should be?

Mr. Luce: I recognise the importance of the theatres, which have grown in number considerably in the past 20 or 30 years. There has been an average of one new theatre every year for the past 30 years and I recognise that many of them are very fine. However, it is for the managers of the theatres, the arts councils, where they are involved in funding, and the local authorities to play their part. Local authorities have an important role to play in the refurbishment of existing theatres.

Premium Book Subscription Schemes

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has on the administrative costs of premium book subscription schemes.

Mr. Luce: The administrative costs of subscription services will vary according to their nature and scope. Library authorities in England wanting to set up premium services will want to assess for themselves these costs.

Ms. Ruddock: Would not a premium book service be yet another example of rewarding the haves and punishing the have nots? Would it not mean new books for the well-off and dog-eared copies for the poorer people in the community? Does that not go against the whole principle of a free library lending service? Will the Minister reconsider this horrific proposal?

Mr. Luce: We must get the matter into perspective. A large number of local authority library services, if not most, already charge for certain services, although not, of course, for the basic service. With the Green Paper we are debating whether, in the light of all the changes in library services in the past 10 years or more, we should give scope for charges in other parts of the service. This is just one of a number of proposals. The consultation period lasts until the end of June and, after that, I shall assess the areas to which we can extend that power. The basic services remain free.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Armstrong Memorandum

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions since January 1986 civil servants who felt that actions they have been required to take were fundamentally against their consciences, have gone ultimately to the head of the home Civil Service or the head of the Diplomatic Service, under the terms of the Armstrong memorandum.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Precisely. So if the Armstrong memorandum was at all realistic, why is it that a civil servant should, at great risk, send the briefing that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had in front of him to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—the matter is referred to in column 788 of Hansard for 17 May—revealing the extent of the cold, calculated deceit of the Commons in the Secretary of State's answer to me.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is a colourful character, although his questions get a bit tedious and repetitive. I was asked how many civil servants had used the existing guidelines procedures on grounds of conscience. The answer is that none have done so. They have a right to do so. Under the Armstrong guidelines recently produced, they have a right to go through certain procedures if they think that they have a grievance on ethical grounds or grounds of conscience. They can go to their permanent secretary and ultimately, if they so wish, to the head of the home Civil Service. The hon. Gentlemen asked how many had used that right, and the answer is none.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the existence of the procedure and the fact that no civil servants have used it in the time scale referred to, there can be no justification whatever of the underhand leaking of documents by civil servants in breach of the terms of their contracts of employment?

Mr. Luce: Any leak against the rules of the organisation is to be deplored. I have no particular case in mind in saying that. By and large, the standards of the Civil Service are extremely high and will remain so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the failure of the Armstrong memorandum to provide real protection the reason why civil servants have leaked like sieves in relation to the Richmond Yard affair, in which a Minister deliberately misled Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that. No hon. Member deliberately misleads Parliament.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I withdraw for you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I propose to raise on the Adjournment the conduct of civil servants.

Appointments

Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many new recruits to the Civil Service in 1987 were appointed directly at principal level or above; and how many temporary appointments were made of individuals on secondment from bodies in the private sector.

Mr. Luce: In 1987, 184 staff were recruited to permanent Civil Service appointments at grade 7—principal—level or above. A further 124 appointments at those levels were made on secondment from industry and commerce for periods of at least three months.

Mr. Cran: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the figures that he has given. Does he agree that maximum contact between the Civil Service and business is beneficial to both, as each can learn from the other? I hope and expect that my right hon. Friend will come back in a year's time with even better figures.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been an increase of 400 per cent. in secondment to and from the Civil Service since 1979, but from very low starting figures. I wish to see a substantial increase in that and other areas. I believe that direct entry at a later age by people with experience in other walks of life is extremely healthy and strengthens the Civil Service. I am currently reviewing other ways in which we can assist this interchange, such as the Whitehall and industry scheme, the non-executive directorships and the very good training courses provided by the Civil Service.

Mr. Janner: How many of those appointed were women, and how many were members of ethnic minorities? What steps, if any, were taken to comply with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission in monitoring the appointments?

Mr. Luce: To be specific on all those questions, I should have to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Women make up about 50 per cent. of the Civil Service as a whole, but not at sufficiently senior levels, although we seek to encourage this as best we can. The same applies to the ethnic minorities. At national level, representation of black and Asian people is roughly the same as in the general population, but again the issue of promotion prospects will have to work its way through. My task is to ensure that we remain equal opportunity employers.

Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend has given some interesting information about the upper levels of the Civil Service, but is he not concerned about the situation for junior ranks in London, which is so appalling that almost as many temporary as permanent staff have to be employed in the clerical grades? Could not much of the problem be overcome by generating jobs in the north of England, an issue on which we keep hearing promises but have seen no action?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right about the problems in London and the south-east, not just in the Civil Service, but in other sectors. Until recently we have had a dispersal policy. We also have a relocation policy. The end result is that today four out of five civil servants work outside London. The present climate and market pressures mean

that there are incentives for further changes in that direction, which I hope will lead to the result that my hon. Friend seeks.

Dr. Marek: Has there been a shortfall in the Government's plans for direct entry at grade 7 and above? If so, has the shortfall anything to do with the low rates of pay in the Civil Service? Irrespective of that aspect, are there sufficient civil servants at senior executive officer level ready for promotion to principal?

Mr. Luce: I am not aware of any major shortfalls in the direct entry process. An encouraging feature of the last direct entry round was that 50 per cent. of those who succeeded in the competition were people who wished to join the Civil Service after years of experience in the private sector. That is a healthy trend.

AIDS

Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many anti-AIDS kits have been dispensed by the occupational health service.

Mr. Luce: Civil servants going abroad have obtained more than 6,000 first aid packs from the occupational health service and commercial sources. The packs are used to avoid infection from AIDS and other diseases following an accident, for example, when a blood transfusion may be necessary.

Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scale of the problem in sub-Saharan Africa? For instance, in the Congo 100,000 deaths from AIDS are expected in the next 10 years. As so many hospitals have difficulty providing screened blood, should not kits be issued to diplomats as a matter of course?

Mr. Luce: This is principally a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. There has been much consideration of the matter. A great deal of advice is given to diplomats who are serving in various parts of the world. The provision of these packs is probably the best way to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Regional Theatres

Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of the Arts which regional theatres he has visited since 1 February 1988.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have visited six regional theatres since February, details of which I shall circulate in the Official Report.

Mr. Key: It is marvellous to hear of the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the touring Minister. What assistance is he giving to touring companies in this country?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is fortunate in having in his constituency the Salisbury playhouse, which has a tremendous record of attendance. Two thirds of its income is earned through private sector resources. On the question of touring, it is my view that standards of excellence in the arts should be available to as many people as possible. To that end, extra money has been made available to the Arts


Council to facilitate touring by theatre, music and opera compaines. I hope that my hon. Friend's theatre and other regional theatres will benefit from that.
Following are the details:

Regional theatres visited by the Minister for the Arts between 1 February—13 June 1988.

Stables Theatre, Hastings, 19 February.
Redgrave Theatre, Farnham, 27 February.
New Towngate Theatre, Basildon, 13 April.
The Theatre on the Green, Richmond, 10 May.
Sherman Theatre, Cardiff, 17 May.
New Theatre, Cardiff, 17 May.

Devonport Dockyard (Redundancies)

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the Minister answer the question of which I have given him notice?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): rose—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House must hear the question. Will the hon. Member read out his question?

Mr. O'Neill (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed redundancies at Devonport dockyard.

Mr. Sainsbury: Hon Members will be aware that Devonport Management Ltd., the commercial managers of the royal dockyard, announced last Friday that there would be a further reduction of 1,900 in the jobs available there. That, in addition to the 1,400 job losses already announced, brings to 3,300 the reduction in jobs at the dockyard by April 1990. I very much regret the need for these job losses, and appreciate the potential impact on the local economy.
I understand that DML intends to make the maximum use of natural wastage and voluntary redundancy, consistent with preserving the balance of skills and trades necessary to its organisation. The number of compulsory redundancies will be kept to the minimum. My Department will fund the cost of redundancy of ex-dockyard civil servants on generous Civil Service scales of compensation.
In the run-up to commercial management, there was an extensive consultation exercise. We made no secret of the fact that substantial job losses would be needed whether or not the dockyards were managed commercially, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed to the House on 24 February 1987 that, at the time, DML envisaged a reduction by 2,300 jobs in the period to 1990. Further job losses were expected after that date.
There is understandable concern that subsequent decisions by DML have increased that early estimate. Several factors have caused this. First, DML was deprived of the opportunity to enter the dockyard before vesting day to study the facilities on the ground and evaluate methods of operation. Secondly, there was considerable scope for improvements in productivity. DML accepted a target of a 30 per cent. improvement in efficiency over the seven-year period which was incorporated in the term contract. Thirdly, in continuation of a trend already apparent, the naval refit load allocated to the dockyard as a core programme has been reviewed twice since vesting day as part of the normal Ministry of Defence annual costings, and reduced on each occasion. In part, this reflects the fact that modern gas turbine ships are more reliable and need less maintenance than older ships.
These factors have led to a need for a reduction in the work force on a greater scale and earlier than previously expected. They will, however, result in the Royal Navy achieving better value for money in its refit programme and make the dockyard more capable of winning further work in competition from the naval unallocated programme, the private sector and overseas.
I should like to assure the House that Plymouth will remain a major naval base and our largest dockyard for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can I assume that the failure of any of the hon. Members who represent Plymouth to raise this question can only be attributed to the fact that this is a matter of national security? It is, of course, but at this stage it can only be seen as a devastating blow to those individuals who work in the yard, their families, and, indeed, to the entire economy of the south-west. However, is the Minister aware that, when it first became known that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when Secretary of State for Defence, was to embark upon this scheme, there were, on 1 April 1985, 13,000 people employed in the yard? We were told that there would be 2,000 jobs lost. The figure was then increased to 2,300 and then to 5,000. We now know that by 1990 the number of 13,000 employed will have fallen to 6,000—a loss of 7,000 jobs.
Does the Minister appreciate the cynicism and bitterness of the local community when on Saturday 11 June it read the report by Michael Chilvers in the Western Evening Herald? The report stated that, earlier last week, Chase Manhattan bank was advising its clients in a confidential investment review to buy shares in the Weir Group, one of the consortium members. That was primarily because the initial £300,000 which the Weir Group invested in the yard would mean a profit of £1 million, which was likely to be increased to £2 million by 1990. Does the Minister not agree that, instead of handing out money in that way, DML would be better off equipping itself to seek work in the commercial sector and looking for work in the refitting of the type 42s? The last one of the guaranteed programmes is going to Portsmouth.
Is the Minister not ashamed that 7,000 jobs should be sacrificed to Tory ideology in this way? Not only are we losing jobs in the local community, but we are denying the Fleet and the country the services of men and women who have served us well for a long time and whose energies and support the fleet and the country now require.

Mr. Sainsbury: I understand that there is great anxiety among those employed. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the managing director of DML said, that he looked to the number of jobs stabilising at around 6,000. I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that these reductions in job opportunities at the royal dockyard are not a consequence of commercial management as such, but of the changes that I set out in my answer to his first question, which are a reduced naval refit work load and the need for a great improvement in productivity and efficiency in the dockyard.
That is exemplified in two ways. First, DML itself accepted, before it had an opportunity fully to assess what happened in the dockyard, a target for a 30 per cent. —30 per cent.—improvement in efficiency over the seven years. Secondly, the lower refit requirements of the Royal Navy are exemplified by the fact that in 1981 the average time spent in refit by our surface warships was 20 per cent.—one in five days. That time is now down to 12 per cent. and I would expect there to be further reductions in due course.

Mr. Robert Hicks: May I say how distressing it was for everyone in the Plymouth travel-to-work area to receive on Friday the information


about the loss of a further 1,900 jobs? While we all recognise that the refits of the modern Royal Navy are less frequent and take less time, does the Minister not agree that that is so, essentially, in peacetime circumstances? The fundamental purpose of the royal dockyards is to service the Royal Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Was."]—is to service the Royal Navy in peacetime and in times of emergency and conflict. In view of the reduced work force, can the Minister give an assurance to the country and the House that we are capable of servicing the Royal Navy in a national emergency?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am well aware, as I am sure is everybody in the area, of my hon. Friend's concern for the well-being of those of his constituents who work in the dockyards or whose prosperity is associated with the work of the dockyards. I appreciate the concern of those people.
On my hon. Friend's important point about the strategic capacity of the refitting industry, we keep that under review. However, I must point out that Devonport is only part of the industry and that we keep under review the industry's total capacity. I can assure my hon. Friend that we would not let that fall below our crisis requirements. The existing facilities at Devonport represent a substantial surge capacity, and a great deal more surge capacity is available in the industry, in both the public and private sectors.

Dr. David Owen: I hope that the Select Committees and the Audit Commission will look at how Ministers have consistently misled the House about redundancies in Devonport. Will the Minister now do for Plymouth at least what the Ministry did with extreme success for Chatham dockyard when it was closed, because more jobs have been lost in Plymouth than were lost in Chatham? Will he make available land for industry and consider especially freeing up the south yard because Plymouth desperately needs industrial land if it is to attract new industry to the area? Will he also talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and try to ensure that Plymouth, like Chatham, gets enterprise agency status and extra help to meet this severe blow to its economy? Will he give the ancient dockyard buildings the same plans as Chatham enjoyed in association with the Heritage Trust? A Ministry of Defence commitment is needed to help the Plymouth economy. Will that be forthcoming?

Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the Department of the Environment is responsible for enterprise zones, not the Department of Trade and Industry, but I take his point. We appreciate that it would help the local economy if we could make more land available for redevelopment and for a variety of other purposes. We recognise that and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have already released two central sites and have several other sites under active consideration—including the historic Royal William yard —for which job creation schemes are being considered. I believe that, in addition to the Royal William yard, six other sites, covering nearly 70 acres, are currently under active consideration for release. It is for DML to make proposals about the south yard in the first instance. We understand that the company will shortly be ready to present us with the results of its study into the south yard.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend consider for a considerable proportion of the dockyard employees who are being made redundant a reserve scheme with an annual premium paid, analagous to reservists for the armed forces themselves, so that, if it becomes necessary to expand capacity at short notice—as it did, for instance, for the Falklands or the cod war, when there was a high utilisation, none of which was a large international war—the people with the necessary skills will be available? That would also provide a measure of stabilisation which would tend to keep those skills locally rather than having them dispersed through the world and not available at short notice.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend, as so often, has come up with an interesting and ingenious point, to which we shall certainly give careful consideration. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), Devonport is not the only refitting capacity that is available. The yard's facilities have considerable surge capacity to meet emergencies or crisis requirements. As I have said, that is also true of the rest of the industry.

Mr. Michael Foot: I mean no reflection on the Minister who has made the statement, but is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State for Defence did not insist on coming to the House to make the statement himself? If the House has been misled, as the workers in Devonport dockyard have been gravely misled, it appears that the Secretary of State bears a direct personal responsibility, and he should be here to answer that point. Is not this part of the callous way in which the Government have dealt with the whole matter? When the Dockyard Services Act 1986 was introduced, the previous Secretary of State for Defence did not even trouble to come to the House to move it himself. How can the Minister say that he will give guarantees, when one grievous aspect of the privatisation programme is that no guarantee given by Ministers from the Dispatch Box has been worth anything.

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously the scale of the job losses and the pace at which they are having to be introduced. May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the need for substantial job reductions was known long before we even started discussing commercial management. The longer-term need for very substantial reductions in the work force, down almost to the level that is now being postulated, had already been disclosed in discussions with the unions before discussions about the introduction of commercial management. Therefore, we can decisively reject the right hon. Gentleman's allegations that we have sought to deceive the work force or the House on this matter.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend accept that no one can be happy about the extra redundancies? Will he make clear to the House the Government's commitment to Plymouth by stating the amount of capital work that went on last year, has gone on this year and is continuing now in the modernisation of certain quay work further upriver with concreting to enlarge the capacity of the docks to deal with shops—[Laughter.]—to deal with ships, with their engineering shops, close to the moorings?


Does he agree that such work can be dealt with more efficiently through the improvements than at present, and that that is a good thing for Plymouth?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend draws attenion to a very important point. I cannot answer offhand his question about the scale of the capital works, but I can certainly write to him about that. In addition to improving the productivity and efficiency of the work force, a substantial amount of work is being carried out involving capital expenditure, in rationalising the layout of the dockyard and in producing improved capital facilities to carry out work for the Royal Navy and also to give the dockyard greater capacity to compete on the open market for work from other private sector sources in this country and from naval and private sector sources overseas.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must accept that the scale of the job losses is far higher than the Ministry suggested to the work force. The job losses are happening more quickly and the savings from the management scheme have been nothing like as large as was originally suggested. If the Minister is telling us that the House and the work force have not been misled, at the very least there has certainly been bungling. Is there not an obligation on the Government to step in and save the jobs immediately? If jobs must go, we want to hear news about the plans that the Government will implement to provide other jobs for the work force which has done all it can to save the industry and work for this country in Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am surprised that the hon. Member does not recognise the benefit to the Royal Navy of a 30 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of the dockyard labour force. I would have thought that that would have been obvious. Only by achieving that level of improved efficiency will the dockyard be able to compete for other work, which would secure the remaining jobs and provide an opportunity to increase employment in the area. There is work outside the naval sector, including work from British Rail which the yard has already obtained, for which the dockyard can compete using its skills and capital facilities.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that this is a rare private Members' day and that this is a private notice question, not a statement. We must now move on to the statement.

Barlow Clowes Group

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Barlow Clowes. The House will be aware of extensive recent publicity surrounding the affairs of Mr. Peter Clowes and companies in the Barlow Clowes group. In view of the public concern on this matter, it is right that I should inform the House of the situation and of the action that the Government is taking.
Many companies are involved. Those most in the public eye have been Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited, a United Kingdom investment management company, and Barlow Clowes International Ltd. a similar company registered in Gibraltar. The holding company of the group is James Ferguson Holdings plc.
Investigators were appointed in November of last year, under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986, to examine the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd. The interim report of the investigators has been received and formed the basis for he winding-up petition of that company. The Official Receiver has been appointed provisional liquidator, and special managers of its assets have been appointed at the instance of the Securities and Investments Board.
My Department is in close touch with the special managers, who have been at the company's premises over the weekend. Mr. Clowes has been co-operating during this period with the special managers. At present, it cannot be said with any certainty what the return to creditors will be. Papers have been passed to the serious fraud office, and investigations are being carried out by the police.
On Friday of last week, the section 106 inspectors, Mr. David Ziman, a solicitor, and Mr. Walter Hoffman, an accountant, were appointed under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to look into the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc. That will in turn enable the affairs of all that company's subsidiaries to he looked at.
The Gibraltar company, Barlow Clowes International Limited, is being wound up at the instance of the holding company, under the supervision of the Gibraltar courts. The joint liquidators are two British firms, Cork Gully, who are the special managers of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited in the United Kingdom, and Ernst and Whinney.
Public concern has been expressed about the role of my Department in relation to these companies. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has decided that this should be examined objectively and independently, and he intends to appoint an independent person of standing to investigate and report to him as soon as possible on the facts of the Department's handling of the matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: Lord Rees-Mogg?

Mr. Maude: Subject to there being no legal impediment, as to either content or timing, we propose to publish that report.
Meanwhile, it will be of interest to the House to know of the earlier decisions taken in relation to those companies. In 1984, the Department approached the Barlow Clowes partnership to establish whether it should be licensed under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments)


Act 1958. Rumours about the partnership were subsequently reported by the National Association of Security Dealers and Investment Managers. After pressure from the Department, the partnership applied for a licence and in October 1985, after prolonged negotiation and the receipt of assurances, a licence was granted. In October 1986 it was renewed. In October 1987, in the light of some dissatisfaction by the Department with the monitoring returns from Barlow Clowes, and of other information, it was decided to appoint investigators. The company's licence was renewed while that investigation was in progress.
The main priority at present must be to safeguard as far as possible the interests of investors. I cannot at present comment on the amounts which may be at stake or on the position of individual investors. I am sure, however, that the liquidators in London and Gibraltar will seek to resolve the situation as quickly as possible in the interests of investors. I shall make a further statement when I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the appointment of an independent investigator into the DTI's handling of this matter. However, the trenchant action today stands in stark contrast to the years of gullibility and incompetence which preceded it. Will the Minister ensure that the investigator's report is completed as quickly as possible, so that the lessons can be learned?
I understand that the Minister cannot prejudge the report's conclusions. However, will he at least agree with me as to the issues it must address? Is it not the case that, until March 1985, Barlow Clowes's main activity was bond washing, which is a tax dodge with gilt-edged stock? Is it not also correct to say that that practice was outlawed in the March 1985 Budget but that Barlow Clowes continued to offer a gilt-edged fund with a high rate of interest, income tax free, and with no reduction in capital redemption? That scheme was inherently implausible and it should have set alarm bells ringing in any halfway diligent authority.
In those circumstances, should not the first question to ask be how on earth Barlow Clowes came to be granted a DTI licence, which was then bound to be relied upon by financial intermediaries and investors as giving a Government clean bill of health to the scheme? Secondly, does not the Minister have to investigate why the licence was reissued in October 1986 and in October 1987, but investigators were appointed only in November 1987? What warnings were given by NASDIM, the watchdog, and why were they ignored?
Has not the Minister also to ask why the Securities and Investments Board, which took over regulatory functions only in April, was within weeks winding up a company that had for years been sanctioned by the Department of Trade and Industry? Does not the Government's action in harrying social security claimants stand in stark contrast to their action over the years in relation to the City? What guarantees will the Minister give us that no more Barlow Cloweses are hidden? How many more firms are still trading with only interim authorisation under the Financial Services Act?
Finally, is not our most important charge now to do our best for the investors, many of whom are retired or have sunk their redundancy payments into the company,

and have been encouraged by the Government to put money into the City? Does the Minister agree that it is vital now that the Government, together with the parent company and the liquidators, consider urgently how arrangements can be made for restitution, so that those who have built up funds by graft and hard work do not find that they are dissipated by greed and worse in the City of London?

Mr. Maude: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the trenchant action—as he described it—taken by my Department today. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the investigation, and I am grateful for that as well. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot do so. I can, however, reassure him that the questions that he has outlined are the sort of questions that will be covered by one or other of the investigations. Some will be covered by the section 432 investigation into the company's affairs; others by the investigation by an independent person, yet to be announced, into what happened in my Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it was possible for the Securities and Investments Board to move quickly to wind up the company soon after the board came into formal existence under the Act. The reason is very simple. Under the previous regime, the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, there were not sufficient powers to seize the assets of a company operating in such a way. Action taken too quickly would seriously jeopardise the interests of existing investors, and a difficult balance had to be struck in those circumstances. Whether the right balance was struck will have to be considered by the independent investigator. But it was precisely because of our concern about the extent and range of powers available to regulatory authorities under the previous regime that, in the Financial Services Act, we gave the regulatory authorities a far wider range of powers, which have been used by the SIB in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.
I of course confirm that the interests of investors are our highest priority, and that we shall do all that we can to safeguard them.

Sir Peter Emery: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance to the many investors, particularly those who are retired, who are concerned about the quarterly income that they used to receive from the company so that they could build up their lives in retirement? Is it correct that Cork Gully, the provisional liquidator, has taken control of £51·5 million, but has stated in so doing that it is not yet certain whether there is a deficiency, and whether the funds are adequate to cover all the claims? If it is proved that they are sufficient, will my hon. Friend ensure that payments on the investments are restored as quickly as possible?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend attempt to ensure that, as there is some doubt about how the funds of directors found their way into the directors' control, they will be frozen until the matter has been much more clearly defined?

Mr. Maude: I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to comment in detail on what the position will be. This is an exceptionally tangled matter, and I fear that it will take some time for the special managers and the liquidators to sort them out. It would not be helpful if I were to speculate about the eventual outcome, but I know


that the liquidators and the special managers will want to settle these matters as soon as they possibly can in a way that is as beneficial as possible to the investors.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the £130 million that has gone missing, which involved large sums for the people concerned, is a more serious matter? Will he bear in mind that it is one thing to issue a licence but that it is another thing to reissue the licence after investigation? If the hon. Gentleman reissues a licence, how can he expect the ordinary investing public to regard it other than as absolute confidence in the company concerned? Does not the Department bear a large measure of responsibility for what happened in this case? How does it intend to implement its responsibilities?

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman makes an assumption about the state of the funds and assets that at this stage I cannot possibly confirm or deny. The special managers and liquidators will need to go into that matter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is an exceptionally complicated matter and that it will not be possible for conclusions to be announced for a little while yet. There was no reissue of a licence after an investigation. In October of last year, inspectors were appointed under section 106 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Following the receipt of their report in April of this year, swift moves were made to proceed with winding up the company.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision that he has announced today to appoint a Companies Act liquidator for the holding company and to hold a special investigation into the activities of his Department is absolutely the right one—in fact, the only possible one in all the circumstances that he has described? However, does he agree with me that an important contrast has to be drawn between the rather feeble powers that were available to him under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 and the really tough powers that came into force only at the end of April under the new Financial Services Act? None the less, will he confirm that if the investigator finds that my hon. Friend's Department was negligent in carrying out its statutory powers there is a precedent for paying compensation to investors?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Financial Services Act gives the regulatory authorities substantial additional powers to enable them to move quickly to deal with matters of this kind. Those powers did not exist under the previous regime. My hon. Friend is also right to say that, if it were found in the ordinary course of law that my Department was negligent in the exercise of its statutory duty, it would be liable in law for damages. However, I make no prejudgement of that issue. It is precisely for that reason that we want to find out exactly what happened in my Department. That is why we have decided to go ahead with what I hope my hon. Friend accepts is an unusually full and open inquiry.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Minister accept that, after nine years of the green light for financial spivs, cases such as this are bound to happen? If necessary, will the Minister extend the inquiry into the particular circumstances of Gibraltar, which is not like the Isle of Man and other offshore islands? The British Government appoint a governor. Gibraltar may be

internally self-governing, but if Gibraltar is involved in offshore fund dealings, the British people think that they have been given a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee.
When I visited Gibraltar, eight or 10 years ago, I thought that it was in danger of brass plates littering the high street—that, because of the demise of the docks and the need for other means of generating funds, it would be forced into carrying out offshore island financial activities. Many Gibraltarians did not want that to happen, but it has come to pass. It is only one symptom of this policy. I ask the Minister to extend the inquiry into the particular circumstances of Gibraltar as a financial "offshore island".

Mr. Maude: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does his cause much good by expressing it in the kind of language that he used at the beginning of his question. Under the Financial Services Act, companies based in other countries that do business in the United Kingdom will be subjected to a tougher regime than hitherto. I cannot say that the investigation will look in particular at the regulations in Gibraltar, but no doubt it will throw light on such matters.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in all the circumstances, his statement is absolutely right? I am sure, however, that he would be the first to agree that this case raises serious questions about Government and DTI supervision of the regulatory process in the investment market and about some of the practices by operators within that market. Does he agree that the principal concern of the investing public at this time must be in the integrity of the market as a whole and that there will be concern, after McDonald Wheeler, that this is yet another example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? After examples of this kind, the greatest assurances must be given that the number of rip-off merchants who are still operating in the market is not as great as many people fear. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide for the public?

Mr. Maude: Nobody in a position of regulatory authority can ever give an absolute guarantee that all investment companies are safe. That is not possible, no matter how rigorous the regulatory regime may be. The regulatory regime that we now have is exceptionally rigorous. I said earlier that, under the previous regime, the powers were limited. They were not available over as wide a range as was regarded as necessary to deal with cases of this kind. It is precisely for that reason that we extended those powers in the new Act.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister makes great play of the stringency of the regulatory regime, as he calls it, but is it not true that the Government laid great emphasis on the fact that the market should be self-regulatory? Does he not agree that the history of this sequence of events gives a clear signal to any dealer that all he has to do is grab what he can as quick as he can and get out as quick as he can? What does the Minister intend to do to make self-regulation more regulation according to law rather than according to the whim of his Department?

Mr. Maude: The new regulatory regime that came into existence no more than six weeks ago is based on the law, the Financial Services Act. It provides exceptionally rigorous powers that have been used in this case. It is precisely because those powers were not available under the previous regime that events took this course. I do not


want to say any more. To do so would be to prejudge the outcome of the investigation that I have announced. To suggest that the new regime under the Financial Services Act is in any way less rigorous than that which preceded it is an absurd travesty.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I am not the only Member of Parliament with constituents who have invested a very large proportion of their savings in Barlow Clowes enterprises and who fear that they may have lost them. They want to know as soon as possible what is the real situation and how it will affect them. My hon. Friend referred to this as a "tangled matter" that will require some time to resolve. How long is "some time"?

Mr. Maude: I cannot put a time on it, because it does not lie in my hands. It lies with the special managers and the liquidators. As I said in my statement, they have been working solidly all weekend and they will continue to work full time to resolve this matter as soon as possible. We are very much aware of their anxiety.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must be aware of the great concern that is felt by those who have invested in this group. That is quite apart from deciding where the responsibility may lie for what has happened. Will he clarify for them the position of the parent company, James Ferguson Holdings plc, in respect of any claims that may arise? Moreover, in view of the DTI's close involvement, what role will it play in backing up any claims that may be made?

Mr. Maude: Answering the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question would pre-empt the outcome of the investigation. I have announced that we have appointed Companies Act investigators to investigate the responsibility of the holding company. The responsibility will depend on what decisions are taken as a result of the investigations.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give the House a positive assurance that the internal investigation which he has announced will not be used as an excuse for granting immunity from disciplinary action if it is found that somebody in his Department had failed to carry out their duties properly?

Mr. Maude: I can certainly confirm that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the fact that this is a private Members' day. I shall allow questions for a further 10 minutes, but then we shall have to move on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the names of four licensed security dealers that I gave the Securities Association—the responsible self-regulatory organisation—last week were all given interim registration by the Securities and Investments Board? When inquiries into the activities of those companies are taking place, will the Minister ensure that, if necessary, they are closed down? Will he also confirm that the last

two licensed security dealers that I brought to the attention of the House as acting fraudulently were both closed down by the Government?

Mr. Maude: Under the new regime, the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers are no longer matters for the DTI—they are matters for the Securities and Investments Board and the Securities Association, which should take proper regulatory action. No doubt they will take proper account of any representations that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the frankness of his statement. Will he confirm that the sequence of events—it is very important—was that the provisional licence was granted in March 1985, subject to assurances, and the licence was subsequently allowed in October?

Mr. Maude: My understanding is that a decision in principle to grant a licence was made in March 1985, subject to proper assurances being given and proper arrangements being set up. The licence was granted in October 1985.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that this case, involving another City scrounger being caught in this tangled net, shows that the Government have two faces regarding the treatment of people who are caught by Government Departments? Why, after warnings two years ago, were licences allowed? If somebody claimed a DHSS benefit worth £20 a week, the chances are that one of the Minister's colleagues would have hounded that person within a month, not after two years. Rather than waste the two years, why did the Government not use the power of sequestration which they used against the miners in 1984–85? If the Government can hound the National Union of Mineworkers and follow its money halfway around the world, why can they not do the same to Mr. Clowes? Why do the Government not have one law—for the poor and for the rich?

Mr. Maude: I am sure that the House is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's legal advice. Powers of sequestration follow only when there has been contempt of court, and there is none in this case. I have told the House, and I think that the House has accepted, that no such powers existed in this case. Precisely because no such powers existed in this case, we have provided them in the Financial Services Act.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is a shocking and disturbing story, whose implications are potentially worse than the Guinness saga? Does he agree that it shows once again that, when unsophisticated civil servants, often with classics degrees, try to follow sophisticated dishonest people in financial circles, using the advice of sophisticated honest people in the City—whose advice they often ignore or act upon too late—even with the increased powers provided by the new legislation, they do not act in time to save honest investors? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the directors' movements will now be restricted, pending the full investigation? Will he comment on the Cork Gully inference that £50 million may have been secured and covered, but that it is unsure about the rest?

Mr. Maude: I cannot comment on the detailed aspects of the case.

Sir Peter Emery: Cork Gully did.

Mr. Maude: Cork Gully may have chosen to, but it is not a matter on which I can comment. It would be wrong to arouse false hopes, or the reverse, without knowing precisely what the position is. It will not be possible for some time to disentangle this exceptionally complicated matter.

Mrs. Marjorie Mowlem: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he would not be prejudging the independent inquiry if he clarified an answer that he give earlier to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler)? He said that a licence was applied for in March 1985 and that it was granted in October 1985. I should like a simple, straightforward yes or no answer to whether the watchdog NASDIM—the National Association of Securities Dealers and Investment Managers—submitted to the Department between March and October its worries and doubts about the company.

Mr. Maude: I have already said in my statement that that was the case.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I warmly welcome the new regime of self-regulation and congratulate the Securities and Investments Board on the swiftness with which it moved on this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that a combination of naivety and avarice is always likely to lead innocent investors to be attracted by the type of advertisements which this organisation put in newspapers? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, when exercising the powers given it by the Financial Services Act, the SIB has taken fully on board the need to control the content of advertisements? Will he confirm that he is satisfied, bearing in mind the fact that this is the second occasion in 18 months which I can recall of the Gibraltar element leading to people losing or prospectively losing their investment, that we are making some progress with consumer protection in that territory?

Mr. Maude: Exceptionally detailed advertising regulations for investment business are issued under the Financial Services Act. They are far more detailed and rigorous than was the case hitherto. Under the new Act, a tougher regime applies to investment businesses based overseas which do business in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If there is no certainty about what will be returned to the creditors, what is the estimate? When do we expect any interim report from the serious fraud office or the police? The Minister said in his statement:
In October 1987, in the light of dissatisfaction by the Department with the monitoring returns from Barlow Clowes, and of other information, it was decided to appoint investigators.
What was the other information?

Mr. Maude: There was information of various types and of varied provenance. I am not prepared to say more than that at this stage. Those are matters that will properly be considered by the independent investigator, and I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go into them now.
The serious fraud office will take such steps as it deems proper at the time it deems them to be proper, and I do not

propose to comment further on that. I am afraid that I have forgotten the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Dalyell: In his original statement, the Minister said that there was no certainty about what would be returned to the creditors. I asked him what the estimate is.

Mr. Maude: As I said earlier, it is, I am afraid, just not possible to make any estimate at this stage. I have been into the matter, but it would not be helpful or sensible to make an estimate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the strange and worrying aspects of this business has been the use of funds to buy into or to buy over rather shaky public companies, at prices which at the time were regarded as excessive, through the good offices and on the apparent advice of some of the most respected names and institutions in the City of London? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that at least one of the inquiries that he has mentioned will try to obtain advice from those institutions about what part they played and what advice they gave?

Mr. Maude: I will certainly look at the point raised by my hon. Friend. It may well be that the Companies Act investigation into James Ferguson Holdings plc would be an appropriate vehicle. I shall certainly consider that.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister elaborate on a number of points that he has made? About an hour ago, I opened a letter from a constituent, from which it would appear on first reading that his home, his retirement fund and his car are dependent on his investments. I am sure that he is interested in the Minister's new powers, but I am sure that he is more interested in knowing whether he will get his money back, and when.

Mr. Maude: As I said, I am well aware of the concerns and anxieties that must exist for investors at the moment. I am afraid that it is not possible at this stage to give any further reassurance. It will be for the special managers and the liquidators to settle the matter as soon as they can. I know that they will be keen to allay those anxieties and concerns, in so far as they can, as soon as possible.

Mr. David Shaw: While I welcome the points that the Minister makes about the new financial services legislation which undoubtedly improves the disciplines and controls operating in the securities industry, is he really satisfied that small companies that are responsible for managing overseas bank accounts and investments can be relied upon to exercise proper control? From this example, according to press reports, it appears that the United Kingdom funds have largely been recovered, but funds in Gibraltar that have been manoeuvred between Switzerland and other exotic locations seem to have hit problems. Whether they are licensed by his Department or whether they run under the auspices of other regulatory bodies, controlling funds overseas is a really difficult problem, and perhaps his Department should consider it further.

Mr. Maude: I am certainly satisfied that the new regulatory regime is tougher and provides more effective


control than existed hitherto. I have to say that the position, as I understand it, is by no means as simple as that which my hon. Friend sets out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice—

Mr. Speaker: No. I will take points of order after the application under Standing Order No. 20.

Sir Peter Emery: But it is a point of order on the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no procedure for seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a statement. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Now I will take points of order.

Sir Peter Emery: Not in answer to a question, Sir, but because of the great concern that exists about the Barlow Clowes group, I wished to ensure that the matter should be raised on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Sharpeville Six

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government on South Africa, following the imposition of extended emergency regulations and the latest development in the case of the Sharpeville Six.
The matter is specific, in that my application refers to the latest extended emergency powers taken by the apartheid regime. These extend all the regulations relating to detention without trial, restrictions on press reporting and making illegal and punishable all calls for boycotts.
In addition to the 17 organisations which remain banned, including the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front, another organisation—the Committee for the Defence of Democracy—has also been banned.
My application is important because of the need for the British Government to pass from simply criticism of such action to taking effective economic measures such as sanctions against the apartheid police state. It is also urgent that the House should debate these matters because of the refusal of the judge in the Supreme Court in South Africa to allow the Sharpeville Six a new trial.
The lives of five men and one woman who have been convicted and sentenced to death must be saved. There have been protests from Governments, from Parliament and the rest, and the refusal to allow new proceedings means that, once again, the lives of the six are in great danger, and it is necessary for the British Government, the United States Government and other western European Governments to make sure that there is the maximum protest.
Over the weekend, millions of people saw the wonderful concert put on at Wembley in honour of Nelson Mandela's 70th birthday. Nelson Mandela has devoted his entire life to fighting the evil that I have been describing. He is undoubtedly the most outstanding South African of his generation. The way in which people all over the world saw that wonderful concert on television showed only too well the feelings of people that Nelson Mandela must be freed.
Given all those circumstances, and bearing in mind what has happened on South Africa in the past few days and the question of the Sharpeville Six, I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to recognise the urgency of the matter and to allow a debate so that the House can debate fully these issues as quickly and as openly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The need for urgent action by Her Majesty's Government on South Africa following the imposition of extended emergency regulations and the latest developments in the case of the Sharpeville Six.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the Orders of


the Day set down for today or for tomorrow and whether it meets the criteria. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Valleys Initiative (Press Conference)

Mr. Alan Williams: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have repeatedly put on record your opinion that, when a statement is made in the House, as last Thursday the Leader of the House assured us that the Secretary of State for Wales intended to do on his long-awaited valleys initiative, the Minister should make that statement at the Dispatch Box before it reached the press. You may also recollect, not least because I sent you a copy, the guarantee by the Secretary of State for Wales on 23 May:
I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be making announcements in the Valleys."—[Official Report, 23 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 6]
Today, I have heard that, in addition to briefing editors today, tomorrow, at 10·40 am, the Secretary of State will launch his valleys initiative with a great fanfare and press jamboree in Tonypandy in south Wales, a full five hours before he can possibly tell the House—a typical attempt to precondition the attitude of the press before questions can be raised by hon. Members.
As this is a brazen, blatant discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of your constant rulings, and to the House, in view of its long-standing conventions, will you lend the weight of your office to our demand to the Leader of the House that that press conference and further press briefings be postponed until after the statement and questions in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned this matter to me in advance of his point of order, therefore giving me an opportunity to look into it. I have no authority to postpone press conferences, but I understand that the information to be given in Wales will be released in the Vote Office tomorrow morning—[Interruption.] Order. This will give hon. Members a chance to study it in time for questions to the Secretary of State in the afternoon.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Wales was no offhand answer. It actually appears in Hansard as a corrigendum to the Official Report:
I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be simultaneously making announcements in the Valleys."—[Official Report, 24 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 302.]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "simultaneous" means "at the same time".
The Secretary of State said that he would be making a statement in the Chamber at the same time as he made a statement in the valleys. No one knew how he was going to do that in two places at the same time, but that is his problem. Nevertheless, he gave an undertaking to the House that he would make the announcement in the Chamber. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give all the weight you can to our representations, to make sure that that statement is made in the Chamber, as the Secretary of State volunteered and promised.

Mr. Speaker: The House well knows my views on this matter. I believe that the House of Commons should always be given information in advance of the press or anyone else. However, it is not within my power to


postpone a press conference. I am sure that what has been said will be carefully noted by those on the Government Front Bench.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have consulted five dictionaries, in case I did not understand the word "simultaneous". It seems quite clear that it means "at the same time", in the same way as simultaneous translation means more or less instantaneous translation. Therefore, I suggest that the Secretary of State for Wales has misled the House by making that statement during Welsh questions.
Making a statement and holding a press conference in Wales, even though the right hon. Gentleman may be leaving the details in the Vote Office, is not the same as making an oral statement to the House before making that statement in Wales. I have no objection to Ministers making statements in Wales: it is good that Ministers occasionally make their statements in the areas that will be most affected. However, the Secretary of State for Wales has made a promise in the House simultaneously to make a statement on the valleys initiative, about which those of us who represent the valleys are deeply concerned and rightly, we want to be the first to comment and question him. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use all your good offices to make sure that he does not make that statement before we have an opportunity to hear it and to question him on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it the same matter? Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not normal practice that, when a Minister or anybody else misleads the House, they are expected to make good and redeem that statement? Is it not worth noting that the White Paper on public expenditure produced in February this year shows on page 35 that planned public expenditure for Wales will fall over three years? Perhaps the reason why the Secretary of State will not come to the Dispatch Box is that he will be criticised on the amount of expenditure. Instead, he is going to the valleys to try to kid them, when he is cutting the money.

Mr. Speaker: The House well knows my views on this matter. I am sure that what has been said has been noted.

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That this House believes that any public body or organisation involved in the working or getting of coal should be required to take steps to prevent subsidence damage and to promote public awareness of any workings which might give rise to such damage; further believes that the owners of houses, land, buildings and other constructions which have suffered damage due to subsidence from the working and getting of coal should without time limit receive full right of repair to, or equitable compensation for, their properties; and calls for the establishment of an independent arbitration procedure to resolve any disputes that may arise over compensation for subsidence damage or any matter relating thereto. 
I am grateful for the fact that the rules of the House have allowed me this opportunity to enable hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to discuss the important topic of mining subsidence. I hope that at the end of the debate hon. Members will be more aware of the subject and that the Minister will be kind enough to give some suggestions as to what the Government intend to do to rectify the problems created by subsidence damage.
Many hon. Members will be aware of my interest in this matter. If they are not, let me advise them that if they wish to get on in politics, they should read Hansard more regularly. The problem of coal mining subsidence in parts of north Nottinghamshire is now so bad that it is the single most important issue for home owners in the area. Proof of that is shown daily in the mail bags of other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), all of whom I hope will be given an opportunity to speak in the debate.
In other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Yorkshire and Wales, similar problems are appearing regularly in mining areas. Therefore, the issue needs the Government's attention so that home owners, tenants of damaged properties, businesses, landowners and the service industries may be given the justice necessary to enable them to repair such damage, or at least provided with proper compensation if it is required.
Despite the fact that the Select Committee on Energy carried out major investigations into the problem, including visits to the affected coalfield areas, the receiving of written and oral evidence and the publication of the report in 1984 by Professor Waddilove entitled, "The repair and compensation system for coal mining subsidence", I find it amazing that hon. Members still await any positive action. If any hon. Member doubts that statement, I should say that since the publication of the Waddilove report in 1984 all that has transpired from Government has been the publication in 1987 of their response to the report's proposals and, recently, a Department of Energy consultative document entitled, "Coal mining subsidence compensation: Proposals for legislation". Those reports were critical of each other on the most important points.
I shall point to some of the major differences between the documents I have listed. The Government conceded in their response to the Waddilove inquiry the importance of accurate prediction of possible subsidence damage, yet they maintain the view that as that may be expensive, a


balance has to be struck between benefits and additional costs. Without any shadow of doubt, that is contrary to the spirit of the Waddilove findings, which recommend:
The Board"— 
that is, British Coal—
should extend the priorities for investigating likely subsidence damage and consequent preventive work to include sensitive community areas such as residential neighbourhoods".
Paragraph 80 of the same report states that British Coal should undertake such appropriate preventive measures.
The Minister will probably say that British Coal already does a considerable amount of predictive work, including the carrying out of instructions given to it in 1984 on procedures to be adhered to, and the compilation of a subsidence damage manual. Will the Minister make that manual available to hon. Members? It would be of great help to all those concerned with this matter.
On prevention and precautionary measures, the Waddilove recommendations and those of the Government differ dramatically in their resolve. For example, paragraph 83 of the Waddilove report states:
Coal should not normally be extracted where the Board predicts that severe or very severe damage is likely to occur unless action can be taken to reduce the likelihood of damage below this level." 
The Government's view is only to concede that local planning authorities face a dilemma in such circumstances.
In my constituency of Mansfield there has been a rumour for some time that British Coal intends to make application to mine into the pillar of coal on which most of the centre of the town now stands. Will the Minister investigate that and give me an answer on his findings? Is he aware that hundreds of millions of pounds worth of property and investments are situated above the pillar? If the rumour is true, will he give an assurance that Government Departments will make available the extra finance necessary to try to prevent damage and, thereafter, to remedy any that may occur?
The Government have accepted the principle that proper notification was not being conducted fairly by British Coal and that in many cases inadequate information was being provided to those concerned with subsidence. For instance, with mining searches, recent practice in Nottinghamshire has been to provide basic information on past and current mining activities but not details of compensation claims settled and the amounts involved or what repairs they covered.
Similarly, little liaison exists between prospective purchasers and the estate departments of British Coal. Until a central register exists that is easily accessible to anyone interested and which is preferably held and managed by the local authority, difficulties will continue to occur. Such a facility would rightly offer prospective home or business purchasers direct access to the vital information they need before purchase. Further, it would give owners who believe that their property had experienced damage the opportunity to check for themselves.
The Waddilove inquiry recommended that the Government should bring the Law Society and British Coal together to agree a form of mining search to be used by prospective purchasers of property in mining areas. Why has that not yet happened? Many regard the repair of damage to property as the main cause affecting the resolution of this issue.
Needless to say, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I agree with the Waddilove findings and the Government's view that the repair of damaged property to its pre-damaged condition is the correct formula to adopt. Compensation is paid only in exceptional circumstances and when it is agreed by all parties. I take issue, however, with a number of the matters that have been raised.
The infamous six-year rule is the method by which British Coal determines whether it should be liable for repair or compensation for damage caused by coal mining subsidence. It is outrageous and nonsense that British Coal should feel that because coal mining subsidence damage occurred six years or more after coal mining ceased under a property, it should not be responsible. I have been told that on almost every occasion when that principle has been challenged in the courts it has not been upheld, yet the Government still feel able to rely on that rule. It arises out of the Limitation Act 1980 and is the appropriate measure for such cases.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Housing Bill, latent damage after house purchase is limited to 10 years? I believe that I am right in saying that there is no limit in the Latent Damage Act 1986. People suffering subsidence damage, such as those in my constituency, are getting a raw deal.

Mr. Meale: The consultation document issued by the Department of Energy states that, in cases of damage to property, the six-year limit is likely to be reduced to three years, not removed altogether.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no limit to the period in which damages can be claimed for subsidence damage? There were a number of pits in my constituency, but after 30 years, holes and pitfalls are still appearing for which compensation cannot be claimed. A farm in my constituency, at which mining finished in the 1930s, is still suffering from pitfalls. Does my hon. Friend agree that compensation should be paid regardless of time?

Mr. Meale: As my hon. Friend knows, I have introduced two private Member's Bills, which stipulate that there should be no time limit with regard to damage to properties.
I inform the Minister that I am in possession of a number of confidential British Coal documents relating to the six-year rule. They show a conspiracy by British Coal in this matter. I have a letter that was sent by British Coal's London headquarters to Mr. Williams, who owns a damaged home in Sutton in Ashfield. The letter is dated 7 January 1985 and states:
The strongest limitation period that can apply to subsidence claims is twelve years." 
That view is supported by Mr. Tyrrell, who is regional solicitor for British Coal at its Eastwood hall offices. In a memorandum dated 1 April 1985 to the deputy director of administration, north Nottinghamshire area, and his area estate managers, he says:
Claims for compensation founded on agreements under seal made between the Board and the surface owner—12 years. Claims for repair of property—12 years." 
In a confidential memorandum dated 13 May 1985, M r. Wenn, who is an area estates manager in the north Nottinghamshire area, went into more detail. Under a section headed "Claims for repairs" he states:


Severance Terms contained in Title Deeds etc. —the limitation period is 12 years from the date of damage.
The Minister should remember that that is a memorandum to an estates officer saying British Coal should deceive owners who have damaged property.
The memorandum continues:
You will note that these limitation periods appear to be entirely contrary to those that we have been employing for a number of years, i.e. claims for compensation generally under title deeds, we have allowed 12 years plus 2 years for ground movement to cease and claims for repair under the Acts, 6 years, plus 2 years for ground movement to cease. Implementation, therefore, is bound to be difficult." 
The final paragraph of the memorandum says:
It is clearly in the Board's interest to restrict claims for compensation to 6 years from the date the damage occurred as this may limit our liability. The problem is going to be that as we are pursuing a repairs policy more claims will fall into the 12 year limitation." 
I have a confidential British Coal document—reference EDI(77) 1 K 664—which is headed "Estates department instruction." It was sent out by Mr. Dickie, who was then national director of estates. On page six he says:
It is twelve years where the obligation to pay compensation was imposed by a covenant in a Mining Lease or other document by which the Board are still contractually bound, or by a Working Facilities Order.
I shall willingly pass all those documents to the Minister for his comments.
I should like to mention the effect on some of my constituents of the insistence on the six-year interpretation. The first case involves a constituent who lives at 45 High street, Mansfield Woodhouse. His home is in a deplorable state of disrepair; ceilings are cracked throughout the property, floors are out of level, window frames are twisted beyond repair and, despite the fact that the cottage is built of Portland stone and its outside walls are 20 inches thick, huge cracks have appeared inside and outside it. Mining last took place under the property in 1979. The cottage, which is the middle property of three, is splitting in two. Repairs to the properties on either side are being paid for by British Coal. To make matters worse, the property is listed with a preservation order because of its unusual and historical importance.
Mr. Johnson of 22, Bosworth street, Mansfield lives in a semi-detached property on the Ladybrook estate. Despite the fact that the adjoining house has been repaired, British Coal continually refuses to offer help to repair the property.
Mr. and Mrs. Sharman live at 24 Williamson street, Mansfield. Mr. Sharman was a coal miner and deputy, and worked for British Coal for 50 years. That elderly couple bought their council home only to be told that, because the head of claim—the local council—had changed, a new claim was required. When they claimed, they were immediately informed that, because it was a new claim, they were out of time.
Mr. and Mrs. Lilley of 37, Harropwhite road, Mansfield went as far as to pay for a lengthy consultative report on their property. It clearly showed that severe damage to their home had been caused by mining subsidence. They have been told that to continue their fight for justice in the courts will cost about £100,000—a matter that is making both of them very ill.
I shall pass the Minister a photograph album of the severe damage to 42, Southwell road east, so that he has some idea how bad it is. It is in such a state of disrepair,

because of coal mining subsidence, that it is considered to be dangerous for its owners and local residents. British Coal has agreed that the property is a write-off but refuses to settle the matter because it believes that it can force the owners to accept less for their home than would enable them to buy a similar home.
There is also the issue of the response by British Coal to the need for repairs or to contact from a home owner who believes that he has a subsidence problem. Contacts and promises by representatives to visit are often not followed up. British Coal's response needs to be reassessed, because my files are full of instances of intimidation of home owners after visits by Coal Board staff. The rules need to be changed so that staff are fully aware that their job is not to intimidate owners or to scare them into believing that they have no right to compensation or repair of their properties by British Coal.
Temporary accommodation is important for people who have to leave their homes while repairs are carried out. I fully agree with the main thrust of the Government's recommendations in response to the Waddilove report. There are two main problems in north Nottinghamshire, the first of which is availability. There is an enormous list of families waiting for British Coal properties to become vacant. British Coal estates officers regularly cite that factor as a reason for owners quickly accepting sometimes low financial compensation or delaying repairs.
The second problem involves management. I have had to sort out problems with a number of the public services, including the gas and electricity boards, to stop them disconnecting properties because of non-payment of bills by British Coal. I hope that the Minister will note my comments and write to British Coal in Nottinghamshire stipulating that the board must adhere to criteria on the siting, standard, availability and management of temporary homes.
I should like to deal with compensation settlements generally, which I hope I have shown are unsatisfactory. I am disappointed that the Government in their response have declined to support the concept of a local or a regional independent arbitration service to deal with these matters. It is a major error for British Coal to rely on a home owner's right merely to a reference to the lands tribunals. As the Minister is aware, in the past two weeks two cases against the board—one in Leicester and the other in Mansfield—were won under this system, and compensation of about £40,000 and £15,000 were agreed. It took four years for both cases to reach that position, with costs in each case estimated to be between £100,000 and £150,000. These cases are not unusual; many have preceded them. A much more practical and humane and cheaper approach would be to use the independent arbitration service which I recommended in a private Member's Bill.
I again ask whether the Government intend to agree to the recommendations of the Waddilove inquiry. Recommendation 95 states:
Government Departments should be prepared to adjust the various Capital Expenditure Allocations made to Local Authorities to take account of additional Expenditure incurred as a result of serious damage to an area.
I ask that question because, in my district council area of Mansfield, the following damage problems arise: first, structural repair costs to council housing stock of about £1 million are outstanding, covering hundreds of homes; secondly, at least eight homes which have had to be


vacated because of subsidence damage are uninhabitable; thirdly, 16 properties which have had to be demolished because of coal mining subsidence; and, fourthly, because British Coal has placed stop notices on certain areas, hundreds of homes cannot be repaired.
The Minister is aware that the Department of Energy is awaiting responses to a recent consultative document on this subject. He is aware also that district councils throughout north Nottinghamshire, together with Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire county councils, have already undertaken a study into their areas, as well as compilation of a central register of damage to property, services and land. I ask the Minister to take account of that work and expenditure and agree to delay the closing date of the consultative exercise so that the valuable information which the study will provide is included.
As hon. Members know, I could speak for hours on this subject but I should like to offer others the opportunity to participate. I ask the Minister to take note of all my questions and to respond to me either at the end of the debate or later, if he wishes to investigate other avenues. I ask the House to record my view that this matter is of public concern, especially in my area of north Nottinghamshire, which has hundreds of damaged homes, businesses awaiting compensation and some schools and even a hospital which have closed. I sincerely ask the Minister to respond genuinely to my request for justice for home owners and businesses in my area.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on winning the ballot and on selecting this subject, which is locally of great concern in his constituency and peripherally of concern in mine.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's worry. He will recall that, just before the Easter adjournment, at 5 am in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we debated this and a number of other subjects covering economic development generally in Nottinghamshire. There was not enormous agreement then, but I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that on one issue he is in complete agreement with British Coal. The board does not want its headquarters moved to Nottingham. Like the hon. Gentleman, the board feels that that would not be an enormous advantage. I continue to find that surprising, as 50 per cent. of the economic activity in mining is based on the Nottinghamshire area, but British Coal clearly feels that it is more suitable for the headquarters to be nearer the Department than the industry's centre.
I declare an interest in that I have recently received notice that mining will take place under my home near the Cotgrave colliery. That colliery has had major problems, but it has also had enormous investment. Now that its prospects are much improved, I wait with a certain trepidation to see whether there is subsidence under my own home. I have, however, been impressed by the length of notice warning that mining would occur under our village, the details of the planning process and the information on my rights to object, although I shall not be objecting. Although my constituency is a coal mining area, I have had only a handful of complaints about problems with the board over subsidence. In the past year I have had only three or four complaints and I felt each time that the board had looked fairly into the matter.
I underline the need to keep subsidence to the minimum and I also underline the progress made both in the interests of those affected, many of whom work in the industry—enormous anxiety and distress can be caused—and also in the interests of the industry as a whole. The Waddilove report makes it clear that the cost of subsidence is part of the cost of winning coal. We must bear both points equally in mind. A balance must be struck, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mansfield accepts.
British Coal now has a far better system of notification and publicity, following introduction of new notification procedures in 1986, which advised where workings were taking place or were about to take place. Credit is due to British Coal for that action and to the industry. which is now operating in a much better climate of realism. We must accept that, no matter how the costs of subsidence are divided—whether as social costs, the cost to British Coal as a whole or the costs to an individual pit—there is a trend towards pit-top accounting and there must be a reserve to meet the potential liability for subsidence. That reserve must increasingly relate to the cost of the coal extracted from under the houses affected.
I draw attention to the need to have a procedure that is neither costly nor cumbersome and to the absolute necessity to do right by those adversely affected by subsidence. It is interesting to note what John Harris, the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, whose headquarters is in my constituency, said on a visit to the House last week. He recognises that he is sitting on top of an enormous coalfield with huge potential. He recognises that in a landlocked area, importing foreign coal is not particularly attractive. He recognises that the potential for new coal-fired power stations is enormous. He recognises that Nottinghamshire could be the powerhouse of the energy and electricity industries.
We have the natural resources, skills, traditions and manpower. The main proviso—if not the only proviso—is that we should continue the current progress towards competitiveness and maintain the current excellent productivity results. In the Nottinghamshire area we have broken the record for productivity five times this year alone. Productivity nationally is up by 16 per cent. and in the past year the Gedling colliery in my constituency increased its productivity by 25 per cent. Having lost £6 million last year, it expects to break even this year. Those figures are an enormous credit to the miners and the management. They are encouraging to customers and critical to the plans and future of the privatised electricity industry.
My remarks are intended to keep subsidence and the many other important problems aired by the hon. Member for Mansfield in perspective. All too often when we discuss the prospects for the coal industry we hear doom and gloom. We need to hear more about the progress that has been made in the industry and the promise and the prospects for the future.
In referring to the need to keep subsidence to a minimum, I have already paid tribute to the greater sensitivity of British Coal in Nottinghamshire to the problem. I should like to go further than that. I note that in the Sherwood colliery, which I think is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mansfield, there has been working by finger panels or single entry and in built-up areas panels of 40 m or 45 m wide have been used,


rather than the normal long wall of 200 m plus. That is an example of sensitivity to possible disturbance on the surface of the techniques of mining underneath.

Mr. Meale: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. I would point out that on a number of occasions I have had to visit properities in areas around Sherwood where whole streets of houses were shuddering because of the new workings underneath.

Mr. Mitchell: I readily accept what the hon. Gentleman says, as I am no expert in these matters. However, those in the industry tell me that the point I am making is an example of a more sensitive mining technique which makes a great deal of difference to the degree of subsidence. Perhaps that is why there is evidence of progess in respect of the number of claims. In Nottinghamshire, I understand, there are one third as many claims as there were three years ago. That shows that there has been some progress at least.
The third key point that I mentioned was the need to deal fairly with those affected and ensure that their properties can be properly looked after. As I said in dealing with claims, we must strike a balance between the maintenance of professional standards and the merits of speed. We should again give credit where it is due. In Nottinghamshire, British Coal is handling claims 50 per cent. faster than it was last year. It is also employing outside professional consultants to try to speed up the process and help its own staff. Last year there were about 4,000 claims. Two thirds are being, or have already been, agreed—sometimes with compensation in cash but mostly in repairs—and British Coal tells me that nearly all the backlog should be cleared by the end of 1989. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mansfield accepts that, but I am happy to put it on record that that is what I have been told by British Coal.
Let me make a few brief points about the Waddilove recommendations. I congratulate the Government on commissioning the report and accepting many of its recommendations. I note that the hon. Member for Mansfield also did that to some extent. I look forward to the legislation replacing and supplementing the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the subsidence provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1985. In particular, it is clearly sensible that it should be the norm for compensation to be in the form of repairs rather than cash. It also seems to me that the extra efforts announced by the Government to build defences against subsidence into new buildings in mining areas represent an important trend in the right direction. It is also sensible of British Coal to make a contingent liability of likely subsidence costs in the five-year programme for each colliery.
I should like the Minister to clarify two points. The first, which has already been raised, relates to the six-year limit and the statute of limitation. I note from the Government's proposals that the yardstick to be used is
three years from the time when the claimant had reasonable grounds for believing subsidence had occurred." 
I understand that most subsidence is evident after two years, but I would welcome the Minister's confirmation that where that is not the case this three-year rule will take precedence over the six-year rule. That would seem to me to resolve many of the concerns expressed on this issue

—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).
Secondly, paragraph 50 of the consultation paper, which deals with home loss payments, refers to the assessment of the value of the property that has been damaged with reference to rateable value. Have the Government yet decided what alternative method to use when the community charge is introduced? It would be most helpful to hear anything that my hon. Friend the Minister has to say on that matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: I shall be brief, because I know that many of my hon. Friends from mining communities wish to speak. I urge the Minister as strongly as I possibly can not to turn down the appeal made so excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) but to consider all the facts and come back with constructive proposals for dealing with a whole series of injustices that still continues and which is becoming more serious in some respects. I plead with the Government not to come forward with a ready-made reply but to examine the individual cases and consider the problem to be dealt with.
Since I have represented Ebbw Vale, I have dealt with scores of subsidence cases. My experience is that, over the past few years, British Coal—and before it the National Coal Board—has become a good deal more mean and estrictive in dealing with the problem. That derives partly from the instructions that the Coal Board was given some years ago when Mr. MacGregor arrived. He never thought that it was part of the business of the Coal Board to deal with extraneous matters—if this can be considered an extraneous matter. Part of the change of attitude dates from his arrival.
Despite the efforts of some of the people on the spot—I do not blame them—it is clear from individual cases that there is pressure from the top of British Coal to make the whole business much more restrictive. That is the first reason why I urge the Minister to consider the individual cases. Several of us could add many more such cases to the list. By the way, we are talking not only about individual householders, although in some respects they suffer more severely than anyone else. If the Government have any interest in small businesses, they should recognise the dangers. Some businesses have taken great risks in establishing themselves and then found themselves subject to this special difficulty.
Let me illustrate my argument that the Government should consider the whole matter. I hope that the Minister will report to the Secretary of State for Wales on this subject and that the Secretary of State for Wales will include in the statement that he is to make tomorrow a reference to subsidence and its effects on the valley towns. We have urged this upon him and we think that one cannot have a proper valid initiative that does not include proposals for dealing with subsidence problems as a major feature.
The village of Troedrhiwgwair in my constituency provides a remarkable illustration of the problem. The villagers feared that the mountain was going to move. After the Aberfan disaster, there was a great fear that the inhabitants would have to be moved, and the council properly made arrangements for people to move if they


wanted to, but some of the residents were determined to stay there. Despite the local council's perfectly proper decsion to proceed with a compulsory takeover order, the villagers decided to stay and fight for their homes, as they had every right to do. Following the inspection, the Secretary of State for Wales came down on the side of the villagers, and all honour goes to them for the way in which they fought their case.
But that is only part of the problem. If the problem is to be solved, there must be sufficient money for the necessary repairs to be carried out so that the inspector's decision, approved by the Secretary of State, can be properly put into effect. The case was widely discussed throughout Wales, and there was a full inspection. The more it was discussed, the clearer it became that mining communities faced special problems from the threat of subsidence or landslips in one form or another. In dozens of cases in my constituency, landslips are a real peril. We must have more money and determination to deal with the problem.
I would rather the Minister gave no answer today than hear him retail to the House whatever British Coal happens to be saying at the moment. I hope that he will consider the series of individual injustices cited in the debate and come forward with a comprehensive policy to deal with the real and widespread danger of subsidence, both in the industrial sphere and for individual householders.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for giving the House this opportunity to discuss again the whole problem of coal mining subsidence and the injustice of current compensation procedures.
I go further, and pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Minister for his particular interest in the subject and for being a moving force in ensuring that the Government responded as positively as they did on 29 April by producing their consultation paper. To me, that suggests that legislation is contemplated—indeed, is in the pipeline. During the next Session of Parliament, therefore, I hope to contribute to proceedings on a Bill embodying in a constructive and lasting form the ideas advanced from both sides today.
As the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will confirm, on 19 March 1982 I introduced the Coal Mining Subsidence (Fair Compensation) Bill. Like other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was also pleased to submit evidence to the Waddilove committee. I must declare an interest, as I did on that occasion, in that I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association, and I know that subsidence is a matter of particular concern to national and regional, and especially to local, building societies in the east and west midlands and in the Yorkshire coalfield area.
I am concerned that the Department has not gone far enough in a number of respects. The present law has remained unaltered for some 30 years and gives British Coal considerable discretion in the treatment of claims for compensation which, in my view, falls well short of providing adequate protection for the interests of individual home owners, tenants, business men, farmers

and smallholders, whose property is often damaged beyond repair. With the threat of both seam mining and opencast mining activity hanging over large areas of the country for many years to come, proper notice of such activity and full compensation for consequential losses, especially for agricultural land, must be made available in the United Kingdom, as it is in all other European countries.
I am glad to see from paragraphs 79 and 83 of the consultation paper that due regard is now being paid —and, I hope, will shortly be enshrined in legislation—to damage to chattels, home loss payments, depreciation of crops, farm loss payments and additional compensation for tenant farmers. I welcome that, but I do not welcome paragraph 5:
The Waddilove committee carried out a thorough analysis of the compensation scheme as it then stood"—
and had stood for 30 years—
They recognised that the main thrust of existing provisions was right, but identified certain shortcomings. They did not call for a radical revision or overhaul o f the system as operated by British Coal, but for administrative changes, many of which have now been made by British Coal." 
It is on that point that I should like to share my views with my hon. Friend the Minister.
Hon. Members on both sides will know that certain legal obligations are devolved to British Coal to make good or compensate for damage caused by subsidence and mining activities, but broadly speaking those obligations relate only to damage to land and buildings. The legal obligation on British Coal is too loosely defined and, in my view, Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen are not adequately protected in law and will not be adequately protected if the proposals in the consultative document are enshrined in law. Nor can they necessarily be assured of receiving fair compensation for damage to businesses, property, farms and smallholdings or for nuisance or disturbance, as would be the case if their properties stood in the way of a bypass or motorway project.
The reason for that is simple. British Coal has a duty to compensate the public according to a code of practice, but the code of practice has no standing in law. I hope that in any Bill which comes forward the code will be enshrined in law. At present, it is capable of being interpreted for the convenience of British Coal and cannot readily be challenged by an aggrieved house owner, business man, farmer or smallholder who may be unfamiliar with the nooks and crannies of compensation law.
If your back garden was taken for road widening, for a bypass or for a motorway, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the Land Compensation Act 1973 you would have the right to have your fees paid, regardless of your financial circumstances, and to have your case discussed and negotiated on behalf of both parties—the Department of Transport, and yourself as a private citizen—by an independent arbitrator known as the district valuer, whose job it would be to bring both parties together.
My concern is that, in this instance, unlike any other application for compensation, British Coal has—and, if I read the consultative document correctly, will continue to have—wide discretion as to how and when compensation is to be paid. It thus has a psychological advantage over individual tenants and home owners, often with small terraced or semi-detached houses, who are unfamiliar with the nooks and crannies of the law.
That discretion allows British Coal to act as both judge and jury. I believe that that is wrong, and I hope that the point will be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Minister. Between now and drafting the Bill, I hope that he will give serious consideration to ensuring that this basic change—not an administrative change, but a structural change—is incorporated in the Bill.
Judging from the heart-rending correspondence that my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), and I receive, as I am sure do many other hon. Members, British Coal often seems to offer compensation on a take-it-orleave-it basis. It is a large, forbidding Government body and the individual voice is perhaps not heard with the same sympathy, understanding and respect as it would be if the individual were represented by a qualified surveyor, valuer, solicitor or other person capable of prosecuting the case in the same professional, technical valuation language used by the coal board itself.

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as it is unlikely that my contribution will be reached and this is an important point. The proposal that these matters should go before a tribunal would mean that the aggrieved party could not obtain legal aid as well. Whereas, previously, an aggrieved party could go to the county court and perhaps obtain legal aid, that possibility will be denied to people in the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important factor in the recommendations?

Mr. Heddle: As one would expect, as a lawyer, my hon. Friend has raised a particularly interesting point, and it enables me to identify another matter. I agree with what he has said, but a more fundamental point undermines his intervention. That is that an individual may refer to the lands tribunal only on a point of law. Disagreement with the compensation put on the table by British Coal's valuer is not a matter of dispute that can be put to the lands tribunal. Therefore, as a court of appeal, the lands tribunal is not a satisfactory solution to the problem. The only way for Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen to get a fair hearing is by negotiations being conducted by an independent party. That independent party must be the district valuer.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his second point about legal aid. One cannot obtain legal aid to refer a matter to the lands tribunal. But, in the parallel that I drew to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker—that of your garden being taken for road widening—whatever your financial circumstances, you would be entitled to have your fees paid by the acquiring authority. Over and above the compensation offered there would be no question of you, or Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen, being out of pocket because of the activities of British Coal or the other acquiring authority.
I draw the Minister's attention to the code of practice. If it is to be enshrined in law, I invite him to agree that the booklet advising compensation applicants should be better drafted than it is at present. Under the heading "How to make claims under the Act", it asks:
Will the repairs always restore the property completely to its condition before the damage?" 
The answer states:

No. In most cases the Coal Board's obligation is to do such repairs and re-decorations as are needed to make the property reasonably fit for its use at the time that the damage occurred.
Who is to say what was the state of the property when the damage occurred? Who is to define "reasonably fit"? I understand that, in a fair and equitable society, the basis of compensation is to restore property to its original state, or, if that is not possible, fully to compensate the owner. Therefore, prior notification is absolutely vital to give the person whose property is affected the opportunity to seek professional advice, to prepare a schedule of condition as the property exists, and to be prepared before any damage is suffered. When damage is suffered, a schedule of dilapidations should be prepared, one document compared with the other, and compensation based on the extent of the damage.
With those few remarks, I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for his positive attitude in bringing forward the consultative paper. I am sure that he will take on board my suggestions, in the hope that the forthcoming Bill—which I hope is not yet cast in bureaucratic stone—is capable of some amendment before it comes to the House for its first and subsequent readings.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). In the year that he has been an hon. Member he has shown extreme assiduousness in presenting his campaign. All credit is due to him. One seventh of my constituents live within the Mansfield district council boundaries. I shall not attempt to repeat the excellent case that my hon. Friend made, but I stress that the forthcoming Bill will primarily affect owner-occupiers who, in no small way, have been urged by the Government to buy their houses. In particular, I refer to council tenants.
For two or three years, a poor woman in my constituency has been going around in circles solely because she took the Government's advice and bought her council house. Her name is Mrs. Morley, of 68 Laurel avenue, Warsop. For two and a half years, she has kept quiet and asked me not to publicise her case, but, on this occasion, she has given me permission to do so. In case the Minister wants to telephone her, her telephone number is Mansfield 846932. Hers is a special case. Her husband has Crohn's disease. He will never work again. He is only in his 40s. He worked at Welbeck colliery. Despite their circumstances, they took the Government's advice and bought their council house.
Their income is £86 a week. They took out a mortgage for a mere £5,000. They got the house at a discount. Within a couple of years, it started to crack. There were cracks in the walls, the ceiling started to come away from the walls, ties had to be put into the bricks, and the floor sloped so badly it was like a ship's deck. They cannot decorate or hang curtains. The central heating pipes and joints are bending and cracking. The house is in a deplorable state. Quite frankly, it is worthless. No building society would provide a mortgage for somebody to buy that poor couple's house. They are saddled with a mortgage on an ex-council house that is not worth tuppence, because they took the Government's advice to buy their council house.
They cannot get compensation from the Coal Board, because the Coal Board has already paid it. It paid it to the council 15 years ago. Therefore, the Coal Board says, "We


will not pay it again. There has been no coal working since 1959." Mansfield district council, which has been helpful, was asked, "Will you buy the house back?" It said, "We cannot." The Government's legislation will not allow it to buy it back. The Government's legislation stopped it refusing to sell it in the first place. The council knew that the house was in a dodgy area, but, because of the Government's legislation on council house sales, it could not refuse to sell the house. That poor woman's house, at the junction of two major fissures, is worth nothing.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is making his case well. At the time of selling the house, was there not an obligation on the council to make it clear to the potential purchasers that it was in an area in which there had been coal workings and that further subsidence was likely? Therefore, the price to the tenants should have reflected that, and they should have taken it into account in their considerations.

Mr. Ashton: They are not daft. They live within half a mile of the pit. They know that it is in a coal mining area. The council sold it for £5,000. How cheaply can one buy a house? That does not prevent the poor woman from being in such a predicament.
What did she do? She went to the insurance company. When owner-occupiers buy their houses, as I and other hon. Members did, they must take out insurance. The building society that lends the mortgage says that one must insure the house. When they go to the insurance companies and say, "Our house is falling apart, and there are cracks in the walls," the insurance companies do not want to know. They find some small print, stating that the company is not responsible for land slip or, in the case of subsidence, the owners must spend the first £3,000. There are other clauses and get-outs. That is the situation that that lady faces.
I took the case to the ombudsman, and said, "This poor woman has been led astray by all sorts of people. She has an invalid husband who cannot get about. He is on mobility allowance. She cannot sell their house. What will you do about it?" The ombudsman said, "I cannot do anything. No law has been broken." I went back to the council and asked, "Will you provide her with another council house?" The council said yes. The woman said that she would be happy to move into another council house and board up her present house. But the council must charge her rent. To get into a decent house, she will finish up still paying the mortgage on a house that is not worth anything and paying rent to the council.
It is a Catch 22 situation. The buck has been passed in circles. She asked the council, "Will you write off the mortgage?" It said, "We cannot. In any case, if we do, there will be another 100 ex-council houses in the area with the same problem." Hon. Members know, as anyone does in a coal mining area, that once one hears a whiff of the word "subsidence" a terrible fear comes into the area. Often the owner-occupiers in that area say, "Please, Mr. Ashton" or "Mr. Skinner" or "Mr. Meale. Do not make a fuss. Do not tell the television or the newspapers. Do not name our street or nobody will want to buy the houses." Then they have to set to with a bit of anaglypta, Polyfilla, plaster or cement. Cement rendering is applied and everyone is walking on eggshells. They are in this Catch 22 situation.
I have advised council tenants in Warsop—my part of Mansfield—under no circumstances to buy their council houses. They would be daft. It is nothing to do with politics. A lot of the tenants have taken the trouble to have an extra survey carried out on their council house before buying, which in some cases has cost £200. The surveyor has then said, "All right, you are going to get the council house for £5,000 or £6,000, but it will cost £18,000 to put the house right." That is without any guarantee of a penny from the Coal Board.
In that kind of situation, the Government have a 100 per cent. moral, and almost legal, duty to bail out those people who have bought their council houses in those circumstances. They have already introduced legislation for defective houses, where they have said, "Okay, they took our advice and bought defective Coal Board houses and council houses which were built of a certain construction. In those cases, we will pay the grants and recompense those people for taking our advice on buying council houses." The Government have not said anything about people who have bought council houses and then discovered that they were not covered for any subsidence compensation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said in his admirable introduction, there is a need for at least two or three measures. There has to be some sort of independent tribunal which can adjudicate without—with respect to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle)—tenants having to pay high fees to surveyors and other people cashing in by charging £100 just to have a look at the house. It must be some kind of independent tribunal to which local councils, British Coal or the occupiers can take their case and get a fair deal.
There must be a register. I am happy to say that on Friday I attended a meeting in Mansfield, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). We heard that six district councils are joining together, and when they send out the voting registration forms in October, there will be a letter included saying, "Has your house ever had any problems with subsidence? Will you tell us whether you have made a claim and what happened to it? What is the procedure you have gone through? How much did it cost? Were you happy with the service from the Coal Board? That scheme will cost £30,000.
Mansfield district council has had to underwrite £30,000 to call in Trent polytechnic and universities to prepare a proper report, because nobody knows the extent of the problem. Some of those areas are sitting on a San Andreas fault such as is found in California. If it was an earthquake or a volcano, there would have to be Government intervention. When there was a hurricane last October, and trees were blown down, the Government quickly found £15 million for 15 million trees, or whatever the total was, to be put back again. This matter concerns people who have taken the Government's advice.
I close with this point, because many of my hon. Friends want to make a contribution. The Minister said earlier that the coal industry would not be privatised before the next election. However, if the Tories win—I do not think they will—and try to sell off the pits, they will have great difficulty in selling to anybody with this kind of open-ended compensation commitment hanging over the industry. No one will want to take these houses on. It is a


major problem, affecting not just north Nottinghamshire and my constituency, but many others, in Wales and elsewhere.
As yet, no one knows the extent of the problem. No one knows the number of houses involved and the compensation necessary. There is no machinery to find out those facts. It is a downright disgrace that ordinary decent people, who have taken the Government's advice to become owner-occupiers, have found themselves in the same kind of situation as Mrs. Morley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that he did not want any answers today. I hope we get some answers today, as we might not get any in the months to come.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I too would like to thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for raising this subject and to welcome the efforts that he has made to rectify the subsidence problems. From my experience of dealing with constituents' cases, it strikes me that the major problem relating to British Coal and subsidence is the use of the six-year limitation rule. I am told that in the old days British Coal used a 12-year rule, but in recent years it has been told by its lawyers that it can get away with a six-year rule. That means that virtually no subsidence claims are accepted in my constituency, because most of the workings took place some years ago.
British Coal has used its six-year rule ruthlessly. It has only really agreed to settle claims which might have arisen more than six years ago in instances where the claimant might qualify for legal aid. In instances where people have, none the less, taken British Coal to court, it has always settled generously before a judgment has been made, to prevent a precedent being created. However, I say to the hon. Member for Mansfield that when Councillor Brian Eley of Amber Valley district council suggested that Mansfield district council, Amber Valley district council and the other councils concerned should join together to take a test case to court and ensure that it was fought to a conclusion so that a precedent was created, I understand that Mansfield district council and the other councils concerned were not willing to join Amber Valley to fight such a test case.
It could be argued that one cannot blame British Coal for getting away with what it can within the law. After all, any commercial company—British Coal is no different —has a right to make as big a return as possible. However, I feel that the inadequate laws which have allowed British Coal to get away with this has caused a great deal of misery and anguish. All hon. Members can quote examples from their constituencies. I will briefly quote two cases just to bring home to hon. Members that this matter has caused immense problems.
A couple called the Allsopps in Heanor in my constituency had a claim accepted in 1972. However, they were told that a further claim in 1986 for damage which had arisen subsequently was out of time. As they did not qualify for legal aid, they were up the proverbial creek. An even worse situation arose for a Mr. R. Cook of Marlpool in my constituency. There were workings under Marlpool between 1938 and 1960 and Mr. Cook successfully claimed for subsidence in 1960. However, when he claimed in 1984

for a massive tilt which had occurred since 1960, liability was denied. He is now unable to sell his house, which is tilting so much that one thinks one is on a ship when one visits him.
I believe that the Government's proposals show that a major improvement is on the way, because from my understanding of the new three-year rule—the Minister will no doubt confirm this—it is proposed that claims will be accepted, not just three years after workings have ceased, but up to three years after the claimant could reasonably have noticed that that work would need to be carried out. That is a significant and major improvement, which seems to have escaped the notice of Opposition Members.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend has given an illustration of a case that is common to all of us who have mining constituencies, but which is not covered by the Government's scheme or the Government's proposals. The example my hon. Friend has given is where compensation has already been paid and then there is further damage 20 years afterwards as a result of the same mining. There is nothing in the Government's proposals that covers secondary damage. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a rule that once compensation has been paid in respect of a claim, that is it, once and for all. Does my hon. Friend not agree that in exceptional circumstances the Coal Board and the Government should propose that subsequent discovery of damage from the same source should also be covered by compensation?

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in these matters, is right. However, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister of the exact position. If there has already been a compensation payment for earlier damage, under the new three-year rule will people be allowed to make a second claim for subsequent damage which emerges at a later date? That is a key point, because the three-year rule will only be effective in helping people if it can be used more than once. Justice dictates that that should be the case.
My other queries relate to the proposal to give British Coal the right to require developers to take preventive action when building new structures to ensure that subsequent subsidence does not damage those structures. I should like to raise two points. First, I sincerely hope that some provision will be made to ensure that British Coal makes its submissions quickly so that developments are not unfairly delayed by bureaucratic problems at British Coal. Secondly, if British Coal makes such proposals, it is only fair that it is British Coal, not the developers or their subsequent customers, that bears the cost.
I believe that in the Government's proposals we have the kernel of what could be a major improvement on what has been a grossly unsatisfactory and unjust situation. At the very least, the proposals will be some improvement. I sincerely hope that when he replies to the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give some indication that there will be justice for those people who need to claim for subsequent damage after they have made an initial claim. I hope that they will be covered by the new proposals.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be brief, in the interests of the other hon. Members who wish to speak.


First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on the selection of this subject and on his contribution, which was first-class and which, as far as I am concerned, has opened up the field in relation to this nationwide problem in the coal mining industry.
I get the impression that Conservative Members favour what is coming. They obviously know what is coming but I will not know until I see it, and I do not know whether it will he of any help to the people I represent.
The young hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has not lived yet. He does not know what the mining industry is about, what work is about or what this place is about. He has yet to live, but he will find out. When he read his speech, I got the impression that it had been written by Sir whatever-his-name-is, the chairman of British Coal.
I want to put a message across about the seriousness of this situation. The Government do not come off well. There is no doubt that in the past this Government made a big mistake because the cost of meeting mining subsidence nationally came from central funds. However, this Administration then changed the rules. The Minister is frowning, but he has not been in that job long and he is learning. A Minister before him changed the rules so that the cost of mining subsidence had to be borne by the pit and the area that caused it. The end result fitted in with the Government's policy on pit closures. I used to have nine pits in my constituency, but now there are only four. The cost of mining subsidence made pits uneconomic. The Government were well on their horses to get rid of the mining industry in my constituency and in others. It all fits in with the Government's privatisation programme. Never mind what the Minister says—the Government are preparing the way for privatisation by using mining subsidence.
I should like to give one or two examples. Hundreds of compensation cases in my constituency have been rejected, yet the hon. Member for Gedling talked about the progress that has been made. He said, "The claims will be gone by 1989." Yes, they will be gone all right—they will have been disqualified, just as happened in the past. That is how British Coal will get rid of the claims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent ( Mr. Foot) was right when he said that the real problems began when MacGregor became chairman of the National Coal Board. Opposition Members gave fair warning in the Chamber that he should not have been appointed because of the problems that would be created.
In one road in my constituency, containing about 120 properties, every compensation case has been settled over a period, except for two which have been described as out of time. That is scandalous and ridiculous. If the people concerned approach the Minister, he does not want to know. He says, "Go back to British Coal. It is British Coal's responsibility." However, when people go to the Coal Board, the Coal Board says, "The Government must change the legislation." Who is the piggy in the middle? It is the Member of Parliament and his constituent, the complainant, who has bought a house that is falling down.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, the Government encouraged such people to buy, but the houses are now falling down and our constituents have lost their money. They do not know where the hell they are, so they go to their Member of

Parliament's constituency surgery to see whether he can help them. The result is a debate such as this, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
I do not trust the lands tribunal. It is another arm of the Government. It is linked to the Government, but it should be totally independent. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) was correct to say that there is a need for somebody or some body to be totally independent of the Government and of British Coal. However, that body should have a connection with Members of Parliament so that we can feed in the necessary information on behalf of our constituents so that they get a fair deal.
In conclusion—I said that I would be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have read the Waddilove report. I am sure that all hon. Members have read it, because we all have problems in our constituencies. An elderly lady in my constituency made a claim and the board said, "No, we are not going to settle but we will do a bit of patching and decorating. We are coming underneath again. We do not meet the claim twice." As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has pointed out, the NCB does not pay twice. However, it admitted that it would go there again. It came again, all right, and when it had finished the lady made a claim. The Coal Board said, "Sorry, you are out of time." Those are the arguments being used by British Coal at present. It should come off it because the Waddilove report makes it clear that claimants have not had a fair deal with the mining subsidence programme. Indeed, I see a theme of fairness in the Waddilove report.
The Secretary of State should be sitting at the Dispatch Box listening to this debate. He is probably down at Weymouth enjoying himself in the sunshine on the beach. He should be here listening to an important debate about an important problem in our constituencies. I look forward to the legislation if it is going to help my constituents. If it is right, I will back the Government, but if it is not, I will kick and kick and kick just as I have done previously.

Mr. David Ashby: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, and am grateful that you have called me. This is an excellent subject for a debate —because all of us with mining constituencies have to deal with subsidence problems time and time again.
The first point that I should like to make is that the Coal Board is not all bad. It is often very good. I can give examples of cases in which the Coal Board—or rather, British Coal—has acted quickly, bravely, strongly and well, in financial terms. The village of Oakthorpe in my constituency had a fire smouldering underground. The coal was on fire and many houses in the villages were subsiding. I can only praise British Coal for the manner in which it acted. It brought its engineers to the village swiftly to assess the situation. It spent millions of pounds and dug out the burning coal. Now, two years later, the village can only be described as a model village. So British Coal is not all bad. It does some good things and sometimes acts honourably.
However, there are times when British Coal falls from grace, sometimes in the most scandalous way. We have heard examples of that today. We must realise that we are talking about the exceptional powers enjoyed by the Coal Board. What other authority has the right to mine


underneath one's house, to cause damage to one's property and then to say, "I am going to be judge and jury about that."?
British Coal is in an exceptional position. One would have thought that, as it has such powers, at the very least it would treat those who have suffered in the way that other people would expect to be treated if they had suffered damage. For example, if a car had knocked someone over or been driven fast down a hill, through a wall and into a house, negligence claims would be made in the courts. There would be a six-year period for claims or a claim in three years following the discovery of that damage. However, that does not apply to mining subsidence. British Coal has been the judge and jury in its own cause for a long time.
At long last, the Waddilove report has appeared and the Government's responses to that report in the White Paper are very good. The Government are looking at the civil law and the way in which an honourable party should behave—the way in which the Coal Board should behave. However, the Government must go further than that. We are not talking about a car being driven into a house. We are not talking about normal damage claims; we are concerned about exceptional behaviour involving undermining property.
If damage occurs to a property, a claim may be made. However, 20 or 30 years later, more subsidence might occur and another claim might be required. Compensation must be paid in such a case. British Coal must pay for or repair any subsequent damage even though it has paid for the first lot of damage.
We must remember that we are dealing with very simple people who are not used to going to law. They may have put all their savings into a house, and subsidence may prove to be a major claim. Subsidence may loom very large in their lives. Those people need help. At the outset, they should be encouraged to have a schedule of condition prepared on their property. They should be encouraged to get expert advice. British Coal should tell those people that it will not deal with them unless they have received independent advice. British Coal should tell them who will provide that advice, and British Coal should pay for it.

Mr. John Prescott: What about legal advice?.

Mr. Ashby: No; those people may simply need the advice of a surveyor. However, they need independent advice.
Time after time, people have come to my surgeries for help. They have not sought independent advice, and they have not received the proper compensation. Their affairs tend to be in a complete mess in connection with problems with British Coal over subsidence claims. Their affairs are in a mess because they have not received independent advice. British Coal should put money aside to provide that advice.
We must remember that a mine is only as profitable as the cost of mining. Part of the cost of mining must include claims for subsidence in respect of a mine. We are not talking about an open-ended book, and there are two sides to the equation to determine whether a mine is profitable.
British Coal must include the cost of subsidence claims in its equation when it decides whether to mine in an area.

Having done that, it should go out of its way to offer help and independent advice to people whose homes may suffer from subsidence.
If we are to have a lands tribunal, it is absolutely essential that legal aid should be extended. That may not be the ordinary legal aid scheme. British Coal should put a fund aside to legally aid people who go to the lands tribunal. There are plenty of precedents for that. Many other bodies provide such legal aid, and British Coal should put money aside for it.
In view of the excellent recommendations that change the rules under which British Coal operates, what possible reason or justification can there be for those rules not to prevail now? If the Government are to make those recommendations, the rules should apply to British Coal now. If we wait for legislation, people will run out of time. That would be unfair and unjust. The whole purpose of recommendations is to be just and fair.
If we are to be just and fair, the legislation must include backdating. That legislation should at least date back to when the White Paper was produced or—even better—when the Waddilove committee was established. It is wrong that someone who is entitled to make a claim now might have three years in which to make a claim from the moment that they become aware that the damage has been caused, because the rules are to change—that provision will apply once the legislation is introduced—while other people will be aware that time is running out as they anticipate the legislation being introduced. There can be nothing more unjust than that. There must be some backdating in future and we must be fair and just.

Mr. John Prescott: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who would normally have dealt with this debate. He has suffered a slight accident about which I was unaware until Saturday. He is immobile. The debate will be poorer without his expertise on these matters. In those circumstances, I apologise to the Minister because I must leave early to attend another engagement.
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), as all other hon. Members have done, on choosing an excellent subject, which has found echoes of support from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in its references to justice for constituents. This matter hs clearly caused considerable concern for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield was excellent. It showed the expertise, detail and example which the House likes and which shows the House at its best.
The argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield requires an answer from the Government. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that perhaps the Minister does not want to be pushed into answering at the moment. From my brief reading on this subject, preparing for the debate, I can see that the Government have been pressed for some time in various reports to produce answers to these questions about justice for people affected by subsidence caused by British Coal.
The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield confirmed that he has established a reputation


for hard work and research on behalf of his constituents, in this case against a big corporation. I know that this is not the first fight that my hon. Friend has had with British Coal. He achieved a victory with other hon. Members in his area in preventing the Coal Board from privatising its houses in that area. I am aware of the tough style of the Coal Board management in the area and I know that it is no mean feat to battle against that management. My hon. Friend will work well for his constituents, as he has shown in his short time in the House.
The debate has clearly reflected the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the issues. I had a brief read through the Waddilove report today. I have also read the reports from the Select Committee on Energy, which places pressure on the Government to act. I have seen the White Paper, produced in response to Select Committee pressure.
The consultative report states that the Goverment are likely to bring in more legislation, presumably to give force to what is already a code of practice. We have heard complaints from hon. Members that the code of practice is not adequate. It appears that the Government have accepted the argument for legislation, and that is reflected in the White Paper. Can the Minister give us any idea when we can expect the legislaton that he has promised to deliver?
The issues reflected in this debate, in the various reports including the Waddilove report, and the reports from the Select Committees are about balance.
Balance is the one aspect that really concerns the House —a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the individual versus, in this case, British Coal; a balance of justice in the payment of compensation; and a balance in the fairness of treatment. From the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, it was clear that there is not a proper balance of justice in those matters. The various recommendations for correcting that situation, which hon. Members have mentioned show that there is a long way to go before one will be achieved.
There is also the question of delay, as was also pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I was astounded to hear of the legal costs involved, although perhaps of late we should not be astounded about the level of such costs. I refer to the costs of tribunals. One member of the public in Leicester, and another in Mansfield, seeking to put a case before a tribunal each paid something between £100,000 and £150,000 to have their compensation increased to a level marginally beyond that offered by the board. That is an exorbitant amount of money for anyone wishing to use the tribunal system.
The report raises serious questions about whether the tribunal system is satisfactory. I note also that the Government are aware that very few people use tribunals. Cost, as well as the question of delay, must be in the minds of many people already suffering from anxiety and stress in their desire to repair properties damaged by subsidence.
It is clear that there is an absence of equality among the parties concerned. A number of individuals have already complained that British Coal has exploited its power and that they have very limited rights compared with the board. However, I acknowledge also that many people have reached an amicable agreement with British Coal. My concern is where injustice may be perpetrated. Parliament should concern itself with arriving at a framework of law which will give a balance between the individual and a public corporation.
The same argument is equally applicable in the case of a private corporation, and that may be relevant if it is the Government's intention to privatise the British coal industry. The balance achieved in moving from codes, recommendations, a sense of fairness, and what lawyers call "acting reasonably" may prove insufficient, and there should be statutory enforcement in respect of certain aspects of the codes, as recommended by some reports. The same concern was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield and for Ashfield. They argued that it should be clear both now and in the future that, whatever happens to this industry, there exists a responsibility to fund the compensation necessary for those seeking damages arising from subsidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield made the point that the situation is becoming more acute, because the uncertainty which prevails has been increased by announcements of Government policies in other areas affecting the coal industry. Recent statements about opencast developments will reduce local authonties' rights, which one or two hon. Members have already pointed out are already limited.
If planning controls are to be reduced, and if local authorities are to have even fewer rights, the rights of individuals to pursue, through local authority planning inquiries, information and compensation will be further reduced. The removal of mineral rights advocated by the Government in view of their possible privatisation programme, under which those rights will be taken from one body and given to a number of others, will also cause uncertainty, until the Government's intentions are clear.
Overriding all that, and at the head of the Government's own basic policy towards coal, is the industry's possible privatisation. Past examples have shown that a privatised company is not given the same regulatory and economic framework as that of a nationalised industry. A privatised company is concerned with operating with fewer controls and maximising profits, with very little sense of social obligation. At Question Time, we heard the Minister make clear yet again his beliefs concerning the bureaucracy of controls, when he compared the controls he is prepared to reduce in respect of a privatised nuclear industry with the situation in America.
In considering controls and social obligations, one should be able to expect of public companies a better standard than that of a private sector company. The reports clearly show that there are inadequacies in that respect and that one needs to establish a legal framework by which the rights of the individual may be properly adjusted. That is the clear message from this debate.
A number of other issues have been raised, and given the short time available to me, I will comment only briefly on one or two of them. The question of compensation raises the whole subject of liability. There is something to be said for the claim by a number of hon. Members that the question of assessing the full extent of any damage and liability has not yet been resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield commented that a study was under way in Nottingham to catalogue the extent of the problem. As someone who is new to this subject, I find it amazing, given that the problem has been with us so long, that such an effort has not been made before and that information is not readily available.
I was amazed to learn that members of the public cannot find out from an authority exactly what are its.


plans or what damage had been caused to an affected property. I was appalled to discover that even claims whose registration I understand the Government still reject could not be recorded somewhere so that, by making a search, an individual could establish whether a property had suffered any subsidence damage. The Government, in their consultative document, have rejected that proposal, which is wrong. People should have all the information available to them in making a proper assessment, and I add my voice to those who advocate a proper procedure.
There are also conflicting views as to how long liability should last—be it three, six or 12 years—and about establishing the period in which damage must be declared, which might conflict with the time at which the damage itself arose. I was impressed by the case put for extending liability to all matters of consequential loss, which is one of the proposals the Government are now considering. However, it is not clear whether British Coal should have placed on it an obligation which is not imposed on others in analogous circumstances. That aspect is not properly explained. What are the same or similar circumstances which the Minister has in mind? How limited will be the liability compared with the six or 12-year period we have discussed? Perhaps the Minister can give the House further information.
I am persuaded by those who argue that there is a national responsibility and a strong argument for a national fund with the resources available to guarantee justice. It follows that such a fund should be separately administered. If it is the Government's intention to privatise the industry, it is all the more important that there is an independent, separately funded body for that purpose. The Government do not totally accept that British Coal should carry all the cost. The Select Committee's report rejected the view that British Coal should not carry any part of the cost of subsidence, but it also rejected the Government's view that their sole concern was the taxation cost. I do not have time to quote from paragraph 161 of the Select Committee's report, but it said that there should be a balance between the two—and that balance probably represents a cost far greater than the industry should carry.
It is amazing to discover from the Select Committee's report how much subsidence costs add to the price of a tonne of coal—particularly in an area such as Nottingham. In 1983, it was about £1·11p, but it has risen nine times to about £9·58. That is an extraordinary cost for any industry to carry·whatever may be considered to be its fair share of that amount.
The Government have given the industry a rather fair economic framework, designed to cut it down to size in readiness for privatisation, to a level at which it will become profitable—and therefore attract the resources for which the Government hope. I hope that the Government will address themselves to the problems I have described, because otherwise they will either deter people from purchasing the industry—and there is something to be said for that—or there will be attempts to cut costs, leaving even fewer resources to ensure a balance of justice.
Having heard about the costs of arbitration for the lands tribunals and the time involved, I feel that there is an argument for independent local adjudication. I noted that the Government mentioned that as a proposition in the

White Paper, but they did not follow it through in the consultative document. I hope that the Minister will say something about it now.
On the issue of repair versus compensation, I favour what seems to be the majority view—shared by the Government—that the emphasis should be on repair. We already know the arguments, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he intends to do anything to assist local authorities—which have tremendous problems in this regard—to obtain extra resources to deal with their housing estates. There is a legitimate argument for such action. I know that it conflicts with the local authority financing arguments, and that it involves another Department. Nevertheless, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
I have offered the House merely a few observations based on a limited amount of research and judgment. I think, however, that it is agreed on both sides of the House that this is a question of justice, and that a proper balance must be achieved—one that puts more emphasis on statutory enforcement, so that an individual can exercise his right when his property is damaged by subsidence.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate gives hon. Members an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the serious and often distressing circumstances that constituents must endure as a result of damage to their properties by mining subsidence. I should like first to thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who used his good fortune in the ballot to choose this subject for debate. The timing is right, as the Government's response to the Waddilove report, published in a White Paper last October, is still open for comment.
Since I was elected to the House more than five years ago, I have received hundreds of letters—and a similar number of visits to my advice surgeries—from constituents complaining about British Coal's attitude, lack of progress and outright rejection of their subsidence claims. None the less, I must be fair to British Coal and say also that many claims have been satisfactorily concluded.
The problem faced by my constituents and myself is that, in Nottinghamshire, British Coal has changed, the rules and moved the goal posts when it is in its interests to do so. A blatant example of that was the reduction in the time limit for claims to be made from 12 years to six. If a claim had been lodged but not yet processed, it was just the claimant's bad luck. Offers of compensation were withdrawn after serious financial irregularities were uncovered in Nottinghamshire during 1983–84.
The only redress available to my constituents is the right to appeal to the lands tribunal. That was satisfactory when it was introduced many years ago, but in the past few years the average cost per case heard has risen to about £15,000. That is not much of an incentive for claimants to rush there for justice.
A change to a simple and cheap system of recourse for claimants is long overdue. That is why I welcome the White Paper published in response to the Waddilove report, in which the Government make it clear that they are determined to alleviate the hardship and distress suffered by those whose properties are affected by coal mining subsidence. No one can afford to be complacent about such an issue, least of all British Coal, many of whose employees live in areas prone to subsidence. The


cost of meeting compensation claims is an average of £90 million per annum, approximately £1 per tonne of coal mined. Small though that may seem, it can be crucial in making a colliery viable. I share the view of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers that the charges should be set against a national fund and not against individual pits.
I was delighted to read in British Coal's annual report, that charges to collieries had dropped substantially—from £245 million in 1983·84 to —69 million this year, of which £58 million relates to earlier years. At the end of the financial year 1986–87, British Coal had —297 million set aside for latent liabilities arising from subsidence. But how do we ensure justice for claimants?
Paragraph 25 of the consultation paper is most welcome. It states:
Under this legislation a claimant is able to bring an action within a period of six years from when the damage actually occurred, or three years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds for believing that damage had occurred.
However, for the reason that I outlined earlier, I cannot accept that if a claim is rejected it should be referred to the lands tribunal. I believe that the matter should fall to an independent adjudicator, or better still—as we are going to legislate—that an office of mining subsidence ombudsman should be set up. After all, we have ombudsmen for national Government, local government, banking and insurance. Why should the office not be used to deal with this serious problem?
The White Paper said that simple arbitration would be available as an alternative. Unfortunately, that is not happening, even when British Coal has accepted liability. All my submissions on behalf of constituents have been rejected. One constituent has submitted 20 separate claims for arbitration on differing aspects, and those also have been rejected. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House how many disputes have been referred to independent adjudication since the publication of the White Paper last year.
In their response to the Waddilove report, the Government stated that many of the recommendations had been accepted by British Coal and incorporated in its subsidence damage manual. While I have every faith that that is the case, I felt that it was in the interests of my constituents that I should have sight of the manual. Alas, it is available to hon. Members neither in the Library nor direct from British Coal. According to a parliamentary answer, the Department of Energy does not possess a copy either.
Why is British Coal so secretive, if it is playing fair? Secrecy breeds suspicion. Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me that he is satisfied with the manual's contents and that the recommendations are being implemented, but the evidence in Nottinghamshire so far is that that is not So.
From the many cases in my files, I have selected six to illustrate that nothing has changed in Nottinghamshire where British Coal is concerned. The first case concerns a constituent in Ravenshead who had some damage repaired. The repair work was unsatisfactory, and British Coal offered £2,300 in compensation. The householder rejected it, and went to an agent to submit the claim. At that point British Coal turned around and said, "We are sorry, but this is under a different heading. You are no longer eligible, as you are out of time." To date, nothing has been given to that constituent.
Case No. 2 was submitted by a constituent in 1986 on five houses, one of which was divided into flats. It was inspected in July 1987. By February 1988, no progress had yet been made. A meeting was arranged in March 1988, when the inspector said that 
The third case relates to a retired couple in Calvert on, who purchased their house from the local council. They put in a claim for subsidence damage and it was accepted. The repairs were not carried out to their satisfaction. The workmen withdrew because the couple objected, and the work was left unfinished until I put pressure on British Coal to complete the repairs. When I visited the couple, I found that the husband was suffering from arthritis and walking with a stick. His wife was recovering from a major operation. They were trying to redecorate their home on their own. I insisted that they should stop. That case was put right, but why should this old couple have had to suffer because British Coal adopted a high-handed attitude when they complained about poor workmanship?
My fourth example relates to the Beauvale estate in Hucknall. It is a beautiful estate, built on a slight incline in the shape of a horseshoe. A few years ago, every house was repaired because of mining subisdence. Subsequently, the gardens of those houses started to flood. Everybody believes that the damage to the drainage was due to British Coal's mining activities. However, the flooding started after the six-year rule, so British Coal rejected the claim and said that it was out of time. The local council is pursuing the matter with British Coal on behalf of the residents. As the houses suffered from mining subsidence, the people who live in those houses know full well that the drains must have suffered from subsidence, too. British Coal should put that right immediately.
There are other cases that I could mention, but because of the pressure on time I shall not refer to them in the Chamber but will draw them later to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. British Coal's recent production records are impressive. During the last two and a half years, the turnround in the industry is nothing short of miraculous. The same expertise ought to be applied to settling mining subsidence damage claims, with a view to providing justice and fairness for the claimants.

the house divided into flats had not been inspected, because only one claim had been submitted and two were needed. The constituent had never been told that. Eventually the constituent said that he wished to be told the procedure for arbitration. The answer from the chairman of British Coal was, "We cannot give you an answer."

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) referred to the problem of publicising cases in certain areas. Such publicity might give the area a bad reputation and property values may fall. The alternative is to adopt a softly, softly approach, but that might lead to little being done. Many of us are therefore in a quandary about what to do.
I want to refer to the Hartington estate in Staveley. Some of the people who live on that estate are worried about publicity, but others would like it to be used as a weapon. The cat is out of the bag, though, because the Hartington estate has been the subject of local publicity, so I feel that it is possible to draw the attention of the House to the views of my constituents.
Mining subsidence occurred in 1984, and 108 representations have been made to me. My constituents tell me that in 1984 they were not told about the action that British Coal intended to take with its underground workings. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said that the 1986 notification procedure now applies, so that difficulty has been overcome. I know that notification is now given in other areas of Staveley that lie within the Chesterfield constituency, but the people on the Hartington estate were not notified in 1984.
As for the repairs, residents feel that their rights and what they have to do when they vacate their property are not made clear to them. They make arrangements to move into another property where they expect to live for a matter of weeks, but they find that the weeks turn into months, or even into more than a year. When they vacate their property, they put their belongings into storage where they find that mildew affects it. Consequently, they feel that they must return as quickly as they can to their homes without checking whether the repairs have been completed satisfactorily.
Residents say that they experience considerable delays before agreement is reached about repairs or compensation, and they blame British Coal and their own agents. When they complain, British Coal blames the householders' agents for not taking appropriate action, but when they go to the agent, he blames British Coal for not implementing his recommendations. They feel that British Coal attempts to push those who cannot stand hassle—the pensioners and the infirm—into accepting compensation when it would be more appropriate for repairs to be carried out.
The compensation that is accepted does not cover the amount that has to be spent on putting the property into order. The compensation that is paid sometimes covers what has to be spent, but that is only because the compensation includes loss of value of the house, due to tilt. The additional compensation for tilt has to be used to put their property into reasonable order.
Reference has been made several times to the fact that, when a settlement has been reached, it is impossible for the residents to make a further claim. Repairs often take much longer than the residents expected when the settlement was accepted. Many of them have faced considerable difficulties because of the time that they had to spend out of their homes, either in caravans or in property that had been rented by British Coal. Residents say it is difficult to consult British Coal. They are not involved in the inspections that are made of their property. They believe that the repairs are mainly cosmetic and that they are done on the cheap, either by cowboy builders or by decent builders who are overstretched and underpaid.
Residents say that when bricks are missing, resulting in holes between one house and another, the holes are filled in. Bricks are not used to fill the holes, and a quick plastering job is done on top of the filling. If the residents complain and say that they want a proper inspection, they are told that that can be carried out only if they are prepared to pay for fresh replastering. The result is that many people then accept what has been done. There are also problems about the pointing of brickwork. It looks a mess from the outside because it is not straight; it zigzags.
Many problems arise after the repairs have been completed. Mr. Hunt, of 11 Hartington view, lists 57 defects in his property. I have seen many of them. I have also seen the defects in the repairs to his neighbours' property.
Subsidence is a traumatic experience for many people. They need to be shown care, concern and compassion, but that is not being offered to them. Instead, they are involved in considerable hassle with British Coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said that there ought to be greater public awareness of the problem, that there should be an end to the time limit for repairs and that provision should be made for independent arbitration. When my hon. Friend's Bills come before the House again on 8 July, the Government should not automatically say "Object". They should consider placing some of the recommendations that have been made today on the statute book.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I was sorry to hear about the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)—perhaps the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) will convey our good wishes to him.
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on his success in the ballot. I should like to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Like the hon. Member for Mansfield, they have spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire has spent many years on it and he recounted the history of his involvement. I hope that the whole House is aware that there are several hon. Members who have battled with this problem for a long time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering, wants me to congratulate him too, I am happy to do so.
The debate has shown that subsidence damage is of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have constituents who have been seriously affected by it. I can also congratulate myself, because I remember my time as a candidate for the Easington constituency in County Durham in the 1960s and early 1970s, when I saw the distress that subsidence causes people whose homes are damaged by it.
The hon. Member for Mansfield asked whether the Law Society and British Coal should agree on a new form of mining search. He stressed that there is no proper machinery for searching for subsidence. The Law Society and British coal have agreed on such a document, which will be made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) asked whether the Government decided on an alternative to rateable assessment for valuation purposes. We are considering other methods due to the proposal to introduce community charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned backdating legislation. It is not the general practice to make legislation retrospective, but we shall consider the appropriate date from which the measures that we shall introduce should become effective. We shall consider many of the arguments that have been advanced today.
The committee chaired by Mr. Lewis Waddilove has been referred to many times. That is quite right.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister has dealt with some of the issues that have been raised, but he has missed out the change, after the strike, from 12 years to six, in the length of time for which British Coal remains liable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that British Coal honours the arrangements that applied before 1983·84?

Mr. Spicer: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about history, but I can tell him what we plan to do with time limits. I recognise that this is a problem.
The Waddilove committee recognised from the start the importance of achieving a balance. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about a balance between the needs of people who are affected by subsidence— they are often employees of the coal industry —and the interests of the industry. It has to be said that that industry is today struggling in a depressed market to stand on its own feet.
Mr. Waddilove felt that concern for loss, disturbance or damage caused by subsidence had to be weighed against the needs of an industry engaged in developing a major national energy resource. The costs to that industry of compensating for damage caused by subsidence cannot be underestimated. They have averaged more than £90 million a year recently, and the corporation has set aside £297 million against latent liabilities for subsidence damage.
I recognise, of course, that some hon. Members question whether subsidence costs should be taken into account in assessing the economic viability of individual collieries. We believe that it is a cost associated with the extraction of coal and should be treated as such. It is not, perhaps, generally recognised that the knowledge that subsidence costs are directly relevant to the future well-being of a colliery must sharpen the incentive for colliery management to avoid areas of high subsidence risk when drawing up their mine plans.

Mr. Allen McKay: Where are the subsidence costs of the 12 collieries in my area that have closed?

Mr. Spicer: If given notice, I am happy to answer that question. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, as a matter of principle, the Government support the view that such costs should transparently be borne by the pit concerned. We think that that will provide management with an incentive to ensure that subsidence is kept to a minimum.
The Waddilove committee published its report in 1984. It found that, although the basic framework of compensating procedures was sound, the subsidence repair and compensation system had certain serious shortcomings, some of which have been stressed today. It recognised that improvements had been made, but stressed that further advances were necessary, and so made a total of 65 recommendations.
The Government gave careful consideration to all 65 of those recommendations, taking into account the points of view of those most clearly concerned—the people who live in and operate businesses in mining areas, their local

authorities and British Coal—and those of professional bodies such as lawyers, chartered surveyors and the representatives of the farmers and country landowners.
The Government's reply to Waddilove was published in the White Paper in October 1987. By the date of the White Paper's publication, a number of changes had already been introduced in line with the thinking in the Waddilove report.
The White Paper emphasised the need for a repairs-based compensation scheme. The hon. Member for Mansfield and others have accepted that idea. The White Paper also endorsed Waddilove's view that it is essential to strike a balance in the repair and compensation scheme between benefits to individuals and the environment, and the cost to British Coal and, currently, to the taxpayer.
Given the large number of subsidence claimants, it is not surprising that a disputed claim may arise from time to time, and it is therefore quite natural that disputed claims should have taken up a substantial part of this interesting debate.
The Waddilove committee was worried that the existing statutory appeals procedure was too little known and that some claimants might find. it daunting. The committee considered the lands tribunals to be the most appropriate bodies to consider appeals on subsidence, and the Government agree. The Government also agreed with the committee that where reference to local adjudication would be acceptable to both parties and was likely to be simpler, cheaper and faster for them, that approach should be encouraged, without there being any need to put the arrangement on a statutory basis.
Since the Waddilove report was published, the Department of Energy has published a detailed guidance leaflet to help claimants. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to that leaflet, not entirely favourably. I shall certainly look carefully at his comments to see if there are ways in which the leaflet can be improved. If he has any further examples to raise, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me. The leaflet is circulated widely to public libraries, citizens ad vice bureaux and others, and it is very important that a leaflet telling the people their rights is accurate. I should very much welcome any specific criticisms from hon. Members. We can certainly get it right, and I should be glad to receive any advice.
The White Paper also took a number of other points from the Waddilove report, which either helped to prevent subsidence damage, or widened the scope and the control of the compensation system. Some of those points have been referred to, but they included, among others, the inclusion of subsidence costs in the investment appraisal of any new mining proposals, and the modification of mining layouts to prevent surface damage as far as practicable; giving claimants the choice of using their own, rather than British Coal's, contractors to repair damage; a payment for loss of home amenity where damage has been severe and repair extensive, but where British Coal has been unable to offer a householder alternative accommodation; extending the scope of non-statutory compensation to householders and to owners of agricultural land; and an annual report to the Secretary of State for Energy on the administration of the compensation scheme, which would need to be laid before Parliament.
The Government have accepted the Waddilove recommendation that existing legislation— in the


Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975—should be codified, and that other of British Coal's discretionary provisions, at present set out in a code of practice, should be brought into statute. That is a direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire. The Government plan to bring forward legislation in that respect, although I have to say it will not be in the next Session.
The Government are satisfied that, since 1984, there have been marked improvements in the coal-mining subsidence compensation system. The hon. Member for Bolsover questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who raised that issue. During that period, the compensation system has already been improved. There has also been encouraging improvement in the handling of claims—whether or not hon. Members are prepared to accept that. Since 1984, the typical time taken to settle claims has been halved from four years to two, and that is an improvement. Since 1984, more than 62,000 claims have been settled. There has also been a decline in the number of new claims, and consequently a marked decline in unsettled claims.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of our arguments about settling claims has been that, during the past few years, British Coal has done its level best to hold up those claims for as long as it possibly can? There is no better example than that of Bolsover church when British Coal refused to negotiate. I had to bring the matter here to the House of Commons and ask the hon. Member who answers on behalf of the Church Commissioners to get on with the job. I challenged British Coal to a debate in Bolsover church, and no doubt we would have filled it. Only as a result of all those efforts did British Coal agree to start the process of settlement with the parochial church council.

Mr. Spicer: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be read by British Coal. It is strange for a member of his wing of his party to be making such wide-ranging allegations against a nationalised industry such as British Coal. It is interesting that nationalisation does not always work, at least in this context.

Mr. Haynes: I wonder if the Minister was correct in what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. He was obviously talking about the average amount of time across the industry. If we had a figure for Nottinghamshire, then we might get somewhere.

Mr. Spicer: I do not deny that there will be such cases. One of the reasons I am interested in the issue is that much improvement is possible; I do not in any way deny that. However, one must be fair to both sides. The number of unsettled claims has fallen quite dramatically. In 1983·84, there were 52,000 outstanding claims; in 1986·87 there were 36,000. That is not good enough, but there is a trend of improvement on which we must improve considerably.
Of course I am aware that some people are disappointed that we have not accepted that householders should be offered compensation for residual loss in property values. We did consider this very hard, but we came to the conclusion that, given the wide variety of factors which can affect the values of property, it would be

difficult to identify and properly to assess permanent loss in value, so we have concentrated on compensating for repairs and damage.
British Coal is now committed to achieving "a good standard of repair" in all cases, as opposed to ensuring that a property is "reasonably fit", as present legislation dictates. British Coal will also continue to compensate at the date of completion of repairs where there remains an identifiable material and physical change in the condition of a property following subsidence, and where it can be demonstrated that such change has materially reduced the value of the property.
In the White Paper, the Government also promise to pursue the question of time limits for making claims. A number of hon. Members raised that question, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). We think that it would be going too far not to have any time limits at all. That matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover. To have no time limit would be as inequitable, in its way, to the body liable to compensation as an over-restrictive approach would be to the claimant. We believe that subsidence compensation should be treated consistently with limits on other claims for damage.
For England and Wales, the Limitation Act 1980, as amended by the Latent Damage Act 1986, sets out time limits in respect of latent damage which does not involve personal injuries. Under that legislation, a claimant can bring an action within six years from when the damage actually occurred or three years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds for believing that damage had occurred. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Amber Valley asked which of those it would be. The answer is that they are alternatives; whichever is most favourable to the claimant applies
The Government propose to legislate to apply a similar approach to the limitation of subsidence claims. In these circumstances, the present right of appeal to either the British Coal Corporation or the Secretary of State against the rejection of claim as out of time under the 1957 Act would no longer be appropriate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister mentioned England and Wales. Are there any proposals for Scotland?

Mr. Spicer: The proposals for Scotland would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that question might properly be addressed to him.
It would fall to the lands tribunal to determine whether a claim was time-barred. In fact, I can tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that similar principles will be applied in Scotland.

Mr. Skinner: How do you know?

Mr. Spicer: It is written on the brief. I had forgotten about it, but it is there.
On 29 April, the Government issued a consultation paper on proposals for legislation. Copies were sent to over 100 interested parties and are freely available to anyone who applies to the Department of Energy. It is a matter of contention—the hon. Member for Mansfield raised the matter today or has raised it in writing—whether the period of consultation should be longer. We think that three months is adequate for consultation. However, in view of what the hon. Member for Mansfield


said about further research being undertaken and the fact that we want to get the legislation right—that is why we have listened to what has been said today and at other times—the Government will always be interested to hear the views that anybody may wish to contribute towards the policy. If those views seem appropriate, they will be included. There is nothing sacrosanct about the time allowed, and we will keep our ears open until the legislation is drafted. We will be glad to receive views from hon. Members or anyone else.
The legislation will be introduced as soon as possible but, as I said earlier, it will not be possible to introduce a Bill in the next Session.

Mr. Oppenheim: I should like to doubly clarify two important points, one of which the Minister has touched upon but the other he has not. Will my hon. Friend state categorically that the three-year rule applies not to when the damage occurs but to when the householder or owner could reasonably have noticed that damage resulting from the workings was affecting their property? What will be the position of people whose properties have had an earlier claim accepted but who then have subsequent claims arising out of further damage?

Mr. Spicer: On the first point, the answer is uncategorically yes. On the second point, it would be difficult for the same damage to be the subject of new compensation. If it were new damage, it would be much easier. The matter has been raised several times in the debate, and I shall see whether I can do anything further.
The Government will bear in mind the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House. We will be bringing forward legislation. We are not complacent about subsidence and are well aware of the hardship and distress it can cause. I believe that the proposals set out in the White Paper, which have been developed in the consultation paper, constitute a balanced and acceptable standard of compensation for coal mining subsidence. The significance of the problem has certainly been recognised today.
In answer to mumbles I have heard from Opposition Front-Bench Members as to speed of action and so on, I should say that British Coal is already putting many of the Waddilove recommendations into practice. The legislation will largely be a question of consolidating those changes and putting them into statute.

Mr. Meale: Will the Minister answer the questions that I asked in my speech?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I have tried to address myself to all the major issues. I cannot possibly answer every point, particularly constituency points, but I would be happy to do so in writing.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for giving the House an opportunity to debate this subject and I am more than grateful to him for allowing me to have the few remaining minutes that should have been his.
The Waddilove report was a response to the Flowers report and if we are not to have a Bill before the next Session, 10 years will have passed without a response from the Government to this important subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to paragraphs 158 to 162 of the Select Committee report. In the short time I have available I do not have an opportunity to go into detail but the Committee said:
Any system of compensation which is developed from the Waddilove Report should be so framed as to apply equally to British Coal and any present or future competitors.
I hope that when the Bill is produced it will not refer only to the responsibilities of British Coal. If British Coal is to be privatised, one hopes that the legislation will be final and binding on the coal industry in the private sector.
Along with others I had the privilege of giving written and oral evidence to the Waddilove committee. However, at that time the problem to which I wish to refer had not reared its head. The Townville estate in Castleford in my constituency is an estate of 400 dwellings where 70 ex-miners purchased their homes from British Coal. At the time, there was no mention by the board of any subsidence. Since that time, those unfortunate owners have been caught by the Housing Defects Act 1984.
The Minister will know that the properties must be repaired to the required standard authorised by the Secretary of State or they must be repurchased by the local authority, whichever involves the lowest cost. The repair of the properties would amount to about £18,000 or £20,000 each, more than the market value. Therefore, it was left to the local authority to repurchase the homes. The local authority valuer valued 60 or so houses at about £12,000 but four of the owners, ex-miners, were told that because their homes had suffered subsidence, £4,000 would be knocked off the valuation.
After corresponding with British Coal, I have been told that it will admit liability but will pay only 50 per cent. of the difference. Therefore, 66 of my constituents will receive about £12,000 for their homes but, because British Coal has conceded that four of them have been damaged by subsidence, they will receive less money. Surely, if there is any justice, British Coal should meet the full difference. That matter is not mentioned in the Waddilove report or the consultative document but I hope that the Minister will take it on board because it is serious.
The owners have obtained legal advice and have been referred to the six-year rule. They have been told that their claims are out of time. I hope that cases of this type will be included when the Minister produces his Bill.
As I sat in Mansfield and listened to the people of the area, I discovered that their main problem is the lack of information. The Government's response to Waddilove excludes public participation. They have talked about discussions with local authorities and other bodies but they have suggested that there should be no public participation. I do not know what they mean by that. As has been said, many of those people have had no experience of dealing with claims of this nature and are having to obtain advice. However, they do not seek advice unless it is brought to their doorsteps. Many people have lost out purely because of lack of advice. I hope that the Minister will deal with those matters.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I have enjoyed today's debate because, for the first time since I have been an hon. Member, the House


seems to be in complete harmony. We agree that there must be a better compensation system for mining subsidence.
I remember that in my former constituency of Huddersfield, West an elderly couple came home from holiday and tried to open the front door but it would not open. When they got in they found cracks in the hall and on the stairway, that the inner doors would not open and that the ground floor had sunk, but they could not explain why. The Victorian mine workings had not been properly delineated on the maps—

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day — Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): In view of the progress that we are making, if no hon. Member wishes to address the House on any of the amendments I shall put them together.

Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

CONSIDERATION FOR CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE UNDERTAKINGS

That provision may be made charging to income tax under Schedule E any consideration given in respect of certain restrictive undertakings.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

ANNUAL PAYMENTS BY SCOTTISH PARTNERSHIPS

That provision may be made about annual payments by Scottish partnerships.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

RESIDENT COMPANIES CEASING TO BE LIABLE TO UNITED KINGDOM TAX

That provision may be made about companies which, while continuing to be resident in the United Kingdom, fall to be regarded for the purposes of any double taxation relief arrangements—

(a) as resident in a territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) as not liable in the United Kingdom to tax on gains arising on disposals of assets of descriptions specified in the arrangements.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

GAINS ARISING FROM CERTAIN SETTLED PROPERTY

That provision may be made about the taxation of gains accruing to trustees of certain settled property where the settlor or his spouse has an interest in the settlement —[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

POST-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS

That provision may be made to correct errors in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and in the amendments made by the Finance Act 1987 for the purposes of the consolidation effected by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

VALUE ADDED TAX ON CERTAIN SUPPLIES OF MEDICAL GOODS

That provision may be made amending Group 7 in Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]

Housing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other day, Mr. Speaker declined a motion to refer the Bill back to Committee. I should like your advice about whether we can refer some parts of the Bill back to Committee.
We are deeply concerned that the Government have introduced so many amendments and new clauses, which were not debated in Committee, that they are again changing the nature of the Bill. We object not only to the iniquitous voting system whereby even the dead have votes, but to the fact that we have been unable to debate the Welsh housing corporation and new clause 47. The social landlords, charter—to which the Minister referred in Committee and said that he felt that it was necessary to refer it back to the House—is not available, although there is a pamphlet about the powers that are available.
On the Government's own admission, they have tabled 15 new substantive amendments. In only one part of the Bill they have tabled 15 new amendments, 19 technical ones and 18 as a result of concessions made in Committee.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, would consider referring back those parts of the Bill that were not debated in Committee. I understand that it may not be possible to take the amendments today, but could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give the House some guidance about whether they could be considered at a later stage? Do they necessarily have to be taken on Report? If so, one of the problems is that the issues will have been debated in a wider way rather than in the detailed way that they would have been discussed in Committee, had the Government been able to get their act together and deliver the Bill in a proper form on Report.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), with which I agree.
When we debated the procedure of the Report stage with Mr. Speaker last Thursday, the Minister—I thanked him for this at the time—suggested that he might be able to make available to hon. Members some notes on the new elements in the Bill. Obviously that matter does not directly concern the Chair, but it may influence the timetable. Substantial new matters are coming before the House for the first time, one of which is specifically referred to in the press release that the Government issued last week. It relates to a matter that probably will not come before the House until Wednesday in part IV of the Bill, which concerns what the Government think is tenants' choice. In that press release, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the amendments would be supplemented
by an account, intended to help informed debates at the Report Stage, of how we expect the scheme as a whole …— to work.
As I said on Thursday, it is difficult for Opposition Members and Conservative Back Benchers to know what amendments to table before the House rises today, because we are not aware of the Government's proposals. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how time can be

made available to table the appropriate amendments so that they can be debated before we complete the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The selection of a recommittal motion is a matter for Mr. Speaker to consider ai the appropriate time. As to timing, page 573 of "Erskine May" makes it clear that a motion to recommit a Bill on consideration may be made only at the moment when that stage is entered upon—in this case, that was last Thursday —or immediately after the stage is concluded. Such a motion is therefore hypothetical with regard to today's business.
I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the difficulties that may arise. As we proceed with the debate, the hon. Gentleman will have to take opportunities when he can to table further amendments if he thinks them appropriate.

Orders of the Day — Clause 32

NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL, OCCUPANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 306, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'cannot be a protected tenancy, unless' and insert 'shall be a protected tenancy if.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 48.
Amendment No. 325, in page 23, line 5, after 'question;', insert
'or—(ba) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who immediately before the tenancy was granted was the protected tenant (or one of the protected tenants) or a statutory tenant of other premises owned by the same landlord or managed by the same managing agent.'. 
Amendment No. 232, in page 23, line 5, at end insert—
`(c) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who immediately before the tenancy was granted was the protected tenant (or one of the protected tenants) or a statutory tenant of other premises let by the same landlord.'. 
Amendment No. 307, in page 23, line 22, at end insert `unless, in any of the cases in (a) to (d) above, the tenant informs the landlord in writing that he wishes to be granted an assured tenancy.'. 
Government amendments Nos. 49 and 50
Amendment No. 80, in clause 33, page 24, line 8, leave out from 'tenant' to end of line II and insert
`(alone or jointly with others) of a registered housing association: or'.
Amendment No. 81, in clause 33, page 24, line 26, at end insert
or
(e) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before the tenancy was granted, was a secure tenant (alone or jointly with others) of a local authority, a new town corporation or an urban development corporation, all within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985, a housing action trust established under Part III of this Act or the Development Board for Rural Wales.'. 
Government amendment No. 51.
Amendment No. 300, in clause 33, page 24, line 43, leave out from second 'was" to end of line 45 and insert
`a secure tenant of a registered housing association;'


Amendment No. 301, in clause 33, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
'(f) it is granted to a person (alone or jointly with others) who, immediately before the tenancy was granted, was a secure tenant (alone or jointly with others) of a local authority, a new town corporation, or an urban development corporation, all within the meaning of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985, or a housing action trust established under Part III of this Act or the Development Board for Rural Wales.'
Amendment No. 299, in schedule 13, page 120, column 3, leave out lines 6 to 10.

Mr. Hughes: If I were to give a title to this debate, it would probably be "When is protection not protection? When is a concession not a concession? And when is a social landlords' charter not a social landlords' charter?" Each of those matters arises in the debate.
I was reminded of a quote—I thought that it was from Sir Winston Churchill but it has an older pedigree—derived from Tolstoy:
Should you read, upon an enclosure with an elephant, a sign saying Buffalo, believe not your eyes.
One question which will arise regularly in this debate is, when does a sign that says one thing reveal, on a closer look, that there is something else behind the bars?
Amendments Nos. 306 and 307 deal with Rent Act-protected tenancies. Clauses 32 and 33 deal with four types of tenancies—Rent Act-protected tenancies, protected agricultural tenancies, housing association tenancies and secure tenancies. Each half of the two clauses deals with a different species of protected tenancy. The important matter of principle—the Government's response will determine whether it will be put to the vote—is whether tenants who are at present entitled to and enjoy Rent Act protection will automatically be granted new Rent Act-protected tenancies and whether, at the end of a Rent Act-protected tenancy, the new or old landlord can grant them assured tenancies even if they do not know what is going on. The risk is that a person could lose his rights at the end of a tenancy without being aware of it.
Amendments Nos. 306 and 307 are designed to guarantee statutory tenants the right to new, similarly protected tenancies unless they do not want them. That is stated clearly in amendment No. 307. The presumption is changed so that Rent Act protection continues
unless … the tenant informs the landlord in writing that he wishes to be granted an assured tenancy.
Sometimes—this will be the exception rather than the rule —people may be willing to forfeit Rent Act-protected tenancies or similarly protected tenancies for assured tenancies—for example, if they want to sell on a fixed-term assured tenancy. There should be opportunities for a tenant to opt out of protection, and that is what the amendments provide.
Clause 32(1) and (3) and clause 33(2) and (3) provide that new tenancies can be protected tenancies, but do not guarantee that they will be. The amendments attempt to reverse that. This is not a theoretical point. I raised in Committee, and make no apology for raising it again, a typical example from my constituency. Just over the bridges into Southwark and just off Borough High street, there is an attractive estate called Newington estate, owned by Trinity House, which invested in the estate to provide

the income necessary to fulfil its duties to lighthouse keepers and seafarers. Just over half the tenants are on fixed-term leases governed by the Rent Acts.
The tenants have asked me several times since the Committee stage whether their present rights will be protected when their current fixed-term leases end. Will they be granted a new tenancy of the same property and given the same protection? If the Government concede, as I think they must, that that protection is not built in, I look to the Minister to say that that is a valid request and to agree that protection should be continued. After assignment by inheritance of a fixed-term lease on the Newington estate, would the new tenancy be an assured tenancy or have protection under the Rents Acts? That point has not yet been made clear under the present drafting of the Bill.
7.15 pm
Amendment No. 325 raises another substantive point —the extent to which people can move into other properties owned by the same landlord and still have the same protection. I am grateful to the Minister for making some concessions and, in turn, I concede that they go at least some way to meeting my worries. I seek by way of my probing amendment to discover whether the Minister accepts that my measure goes further than his. The Labour party has tabled a similar amendment, No. 232.
There may be good grounds for a person to move elsewhere. They may be instigated by the landlord in order to renovate a property, or a tenant may wish to move to larger, or smaller, premises because of a change in the number in his family. The concessions should be made clear. If they do not go as far as my amendment, the Government should accept that they need to go further. The Government's concessions do not appear to cover whether a move to another property owned by the same owner or managed by the same managing agency carries the same protection.
The Minister will have seen in the specialist housing press reference to worries about this aspect. Amendment No. 48 appears to allow a new landlord to talk a tenant who is unaware of his or her rights into signing a new agreement when ownership is transferred, with none of the old rights. I accept that this will apply only when a tenancy and ownership ends and there is a new landlord. It is likely that a person will buy a property so that he has it when the fixed-term lease concludes. Tenants may find on signing their new seven or 14-year lease that they have an assured tenancy and not a Rent Act-protected tenancy. Like many hon. Members, I listened to the Government's case in Committee. The logic of their argument is that they are not seeking to alter the rights of tenants who are presently protected. I believe, as do many tenants and those involved with them, that the Government are resiling from that position and that some existing protected tenants will not be protected if the Bill is passed unamended.
Amendments have been tabled which are worthy of support and an appropriate response and which protect the present practice of mobility between properties in the housing association sector. Many of us use in our constituency work information from the housing association liaison project, which is operated by housing associations. It allows people who live in a property owned by a housing association in one borough to apply for a transfer to another property owned by a different housing association in a different borough. I am not convinced


—the amendments point to this deficiency—that there will be the same facility to enable people to move once the protection ends. In particular, I would ask the Minister to consider the threat that clause 33 appears to pose to arrangements which are mutually beneficial, which allow mobility and which the Government should support.
This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the social landlords' charter, to which amendment No. 299 relates. In Committee, we had a long debate about whether there should be a housing association tenancy. The Minister will remember our exchanges about the status of housing associations. We wanted to establish whether they were private sector bodies, public sector bodies or something in between. Are they a new social provision? The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) asserted that they were in the public sector. The Minister resisted. Eventually, I elicited from him a commitment that they were not in the private sector either.
If that is correct, what is now presented as the social landlords' charter appears to be slightly different from what was implied in Committee. It looks as though we are to have not a housing association tenancy, or even half a housing association tenancy but some sort of guidance from an ever more powerful quango, the Housing Corporation, appointed by the Secretary of State, which will apparently mysteriously provide some sort of protection for the new sector which is neither one thing nor the other. It looks as though all that we shall have is a bit of extra protection added on to the private sector with a lack of rights that the Government seek to make the growth sector of their rented housing policy.

Mr. Soley: Is not the reason for that that the Secretary of State for the Environment would dearly like housing associations to be moved into the private sector, whereas the Minister for Housing and Planning recognises that that would not work and would therefore like to keep housing associations in limbo, whereas, to my mind, they clearly belong in the social landlord or public sector portfolios.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State is in his place so perhaps he would like to reply to that. Last week we were all waiting for the balloon marked "social landlords' charter" to go up, but no one was sure whether it was the right balloon. On Wednesday, the Minister of Housing and Planning went to Warrington and made a speech. The press release, issued at the very last minute, did not relate to the contents of the speech. No one was sure whether what they saw was the balloon marked "social landlords' charter" or something else. Perhaps the Secretary of State will come clean on this. There certainly appears to have been an internal debate about what the new creation should be. Whatever the substance may be, the Secretary of State must surely have been happy with the description given.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest balloon was in the Scottish Office? Having served on the Opposition Front Bench during the proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I am very interested in this debate on the English Housing Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland held throughout that housing associations were to be in the private sector under the new arrangement. Therefore, I was particularly interested to read the speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning in Warrington last week as it was prefaced by a paragraph that concluded by

referring to a new social housing sector in Britain. For the time being, at any rate, Scotland is part of Britain, as far as I know. I have tabled a series of written questions to the Scottish Office to try to find out whether Scotland is to be part of the new scheme, but there seems to be chaos in Government ranks at present.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not be drawn into discussing whether Scotland is in Britain; the Government have not yet managed to float Scotland off, despite their efforts to float everything else off. We discovered in Committee that what went on in the Scottish Office did not go on in Marsham street and vice versa. I might say that we were often envious because we wished that we could have proposals similar to those accepted by the Scottish Office. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) may be critical but we would have been grateful for some of the small droppings off the Scottish Office table.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Droppings? Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, I meant the crumbs.

Mr. McCartney: We have table manners in Scotland, you know.

Mr. Hughes: The confusion probably arose from bread and dripping.
The was-it, wasn't-it social landlords' charter announcement on Wednesday has certainly not persuaded good Tory bodies such as the Association of District Councils to welcome the proposal with open arms. The National Federation of Housing Associations said that there were good bits, but that it did not go far enough. The Institute of Housing still has its alternative ready to be taken up by the Government. We are sad that what promised much has apparently given birth to so little.
I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have the good fortune to be chairing them, but we shall no doubt have some very interesting debates on this question. The Minister implied that the rents in the social landlord sector must remain within the reach of those in lower-paid employment, but we have not yet been shown the mechanism to achieve that. We shall be asking, "When is an affordable rent not an affordable rent?" Some of us have very clear views about that and we await the Government's response on it. We shall be interested to discover whether we got the whole picture and whether what was described as an elephant is in fact a buffalo, to return to my original quotation. Are we to have a social landlord's charter or are we to have private sector assured tenancies with knobs on but very few advantages to the tenant in the end?
Amendment No. 299 focuses on the fact that in moving the housing association sector the Government appear to be removing its security and removing from housing association tenants the right to buy. I do not know whether that is what the Minister intended. The right to buy applies only to secure tenancies. If housing association tenancies are not to be secure tenancies, presumably the right to buy will not apply. That did not get a press release in Marsham street green, or bigger neon lights either.
It also looks as though the Government are repealing the right of housing association associations and the like to grant secure tenancies. This is the time to ask the Minister to set out clearly—not just for the House but for all those who have been building up the housing association


movement—the exact implications of this part of the Bill and what exactly the Government amendments will do to the housing association sector. What will be the rights of tenants in housing association property and as regards the rent that they have to pay? If the provisions go through and the Opposition amendments are rejected will the housing association tenant have only four weeks' notice to quit as opposed to the security enjoyed by such tenants at the moment? This is the time when the truth will out. I note that the Secretary of State has just left. Perhaps he does not want to be here when what was promised fails to be delivered. I hope that the Government will at least accept that the fears are well founded. Unless they move some way in our direction, we shall have to register our feeling that much was promised but not enough has been delivered.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Opposition take strong exception to the Government's failure to make absolutely clear their intentions on the transferability of tenure for housing association tenants and the other transitional provisions. The Government are attempting to tighten the noose around the Rent Act protection that private sector, local authority and housing association tenants have hitherto enjoyed. It is part of their attempt to make what they see as a great leap forward—the vision of a free market-based housing market. They see it as an attempt to rerun the 1957 Act deregulation of the housing sector. For some of the reasons already mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) we take strong exception to that and we also have special reasons of our own.
Amendments Nos. 232, 300, 301 and 299 are intended to highlight the problems that the Government are creating for themselves by their inability to make up their mind about the status of housing associations in the brave new world of the deregulated housing market. Their current dilemma is in the same tradition as the problems that they faced in extending the transitional provisions when phasing out the Rent Acts in the private sector. The Government were unable to sort this out in Committee and the amendments that they have been tabling right up to this morning leave us with the impression that the Secretary of State as Caligula and the Minister of State as the horse appointed to be his proconsul are still in some conflict and that as the Minister of State canters through the private green belt around his hon. Friend's castle in Cirencester, communications between the two of them are still somewhat deficient. In the next couple of days, they must tell us finally whether housing associations are intended to be free market bodies with assured tenancies and market rents or part of the social housing sector and, if the latter, how the right to buy will be handled.
That critical division within the Government has produced an extraordinary piece of legislative jerry-building to which last-minute additions are still being proposed. I have no doubt that when the Bill goes to another place it will still be subject to multiple amendments, some put down by the Minister of State to neutralise those that the Secretary of State persuaded his ministerial team to table the previous day. The Bill will be a succession of lean-tos propped precariously on one another.
7.30 pm
The difficulty that we all face is in knowing the kind of tenants for whom the housing association sector is intended to cater when it moves away from the traditional concept to which we have become accustomed even from this Government. The Government went to a great deal of trouble to extend security of succession to council tenants in 1980 and the right to buy to housing associations other than charitable associations in 1980, further strengthened by the Housing Associations Act 1985. The Government's current mental state on housing matters is clearly schizophrenic, but they have a duty to inform the half million families in housing association tenancies what is intended for that sector and how it is to move from the situation created by the Government in the past nine years to the proposed new state of affairs.
Housing association tenants need to know whether they will have the right to buy or whether the Government intend to treat the associations as commercial agencies with commercial methods of raising funding and thus not subject to the right to buy. If that is the intention, will tenants be offered transfers to other public sector housing with full transferability of discount? This is a critical area of difficulty for the Government as they have invested so much political capital in the right to buy with transferable and successively increasing discounts.
Moreover, while the Government are furiously tabling amendments to their own legislation 14 weeks after the end of the Committee stage, along comes the Secretary of State for Wales and starts dripping words to the press about a further extension of the right to buy, with massive discounts and the sale of two-up two-down council houses in Wales for £1 apiece to sitting council tenants. Presumably the same would apply to housing association tenants. The provisions in the Bill seem to run directly counter to the press briefings by the Secretary of State for Wales two weeks ago, which were presumably intended to cover England and Wales and perhaps even Scotland, too.
None of this does much to foster the conviction that the Government know their own mind. The Minister of State will have to take a couple more canters around the Secretary of State's private paddock to establish whether the intention is to introduce further discounts for council tenants, and presumably also for housing association tenants, or whether it is the opposite. People must be told whether the Government are still committed to the right to buy and the possible elimination of public sector housing or whether they have decided to go back on that commitment because they regard a large rented sector as desirable for reasons of labour mobility or whatever else they have in mind.
The Government's schizophrenia must come to an end in the next couple of days. Local authority and housing association tenants have the right to know what is intended for them. They waited for the Housing Bill and they have waited 14 weeks since the end of the Committee stage, but Government amendments are still pouring in. Many of those amendments do not fit in with previous legislation. The moment of truth must come during the Report stage of this extraordinary double Bill which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have cobbled together in such a way that it would certainly not be guaranteed by the National House-Building Council, as it clearly will not last long.
Will the Secretary of State now tell us how he regards the housing associations of the future? Will t hey offer


secure tenancies and the right to buy or will they be part of the private sector with assured tenancies and market rents, and how are they intended to move from one situation to the other?

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Many Opposition Members seem not to have understood the history of the housing association movement, which should actually be called the voluntary housing movement and does not really fall either in the public sector or in the private sector. If hon. Members have not yet read C. V. Baker's excellent book on the history of the housing association movement, they should do so now. They will then realise that it is a progressive movement which was forestalled mainly by the failure of local authorities to show the same enthusiasm for housing after the first world war as the voluntary movement had before the war and has again today under the Government's proposals.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman is giving us lessons on housing, I should remind him that both the Addison Act and the Wheatley Act which were dealt with by local authorities made an enormous contribution to housing in the public sector. Local authorities participated strongly in that initiative which grew directly out of the campaigns which developed before the first world war and continued thereafter.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but it is the belief of many that the failure of councils to take up the old management traditions after the first world war, combined with the poor estate design, had much to do with stunting the growth of a very important movement.
It is important to realise that, by and large, housing associations are small bodies both in terms of the number of houses that they control and in the scope and area of their activities.

Mr. McCartney: In giving this history lesson on public housing concepts, will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what happened in the public sector before 1919? He seems to suggest that there was some kind of activity before that date. Perhaps I went to a different school and my knowledge of history and social science is deficient on that point, but I doubt it. Having done such magnificent research on the subject, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give chapter and verse about what exactly was the public sector before 1919.

Mr. Kirkhope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not trying to teach anybody anything. I am trying to make a few observations about these matters, as I am entitled to do, just as the hon. Gentleman is entitled to do.
It is perfectly true that, before 1919, one of the large movements in this country was the almshouses. [Interruption.]' Any derogatory remarks about almshouses are not helpful. They were the precursors of the present voluntary housing movement. They were set up on a charitable basis and were extremely successful in providing good, modern housing. They had enlightened housing management. That is what I tried to say to hon. Members when I referred to local authorities which, I regret to say, for many years were not as enlightened and did not have the same progressive views as the voluntary housing movement.
When one talks about the great number of housing associations, it is important to remember that my

constituency and the area around it in Leeds have more diverse types of housing associations than many other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will acknowledge that. I support what the Government are trying to do. It is important not to create an atmosphere in which small housing associations are unable to continue their work in that small area in which they want to work.

Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Leeds housing associations have petitioned the hon. Gentleman—he has made press statements about them—to say that the proposals in the Bill will make their work more difficult? Not least, they will price them out of development in inner-city areas that are difficult to develop and will make it more difficult for them to provide accommodation for those with special needs. Having voted against them in Standing Committee, what is the hon. Gentleman's response to housing associations now?

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to give lessons of one kind or another. I have met representatives of the Leeds housing association movement. I am rather more aware than the hon. Gentleman is of what they said to me at the time. They generally welcome the Government's proposals to enliven—[Interruption.] I have had meetings with them, and I know what they think. They generally welcome the Government's approach to the enlivenment of the housing association sector. They welcome the greater freedoms that they will have in raising finance. They greatly welcome the fact that they will receive support from the Housing Corporation and from many other institutions such as the building societies that are now able to support them. They welcome all those things. Naturally, they have the concerns that I have expressed. To some extent, smaller associations worry that they will be gobbled up or that their specific role will be affected.
The Government are generally right, but, obviously, it is important too for us to do our best to recognise the needs of housing associations of every size and type. Only through doing that will we continue to give the extra necessary support to make the housing association movement grow even faster.

Mr. Soley: My remarks on this important group of amendments will be brief. We should like to know why the Minister is moving Government amendments Nos. 50 a nd 51 when, in a later part of the Bill, he proposes to remove from about 500,000 existing housing association tenants security of tenure, tenants' charter rights, and rights to buy. If the Minister examines amendment No. 299, he will see that we seek to delete the proposed partial repeal of section 80 of the Housing Act 1985. The partial repeal would mean that housing associations no longer satisfy the "landlord condition" required for a secure tenancy.
In other words, after the enactment of the Bill, the existing 500,000 housing association tenants will cease to be secure tenants, because the landlord condition required for a secure tenancy will not be satisfied. Additionally, tenants of non-charitable housing associations will lose the right to buy, and tenants of non-charitable housing associations will lose the right to apply for a transferable discount to assist them to purchase a property in the private sector. I should like the Minister's comments on those issues.
Rather more widely, and without repeating the arguments already outlined by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), I warn the Government, with considerable seriousness, that they are in danger not only of not achieving their goal but of destroying the housing association movement as we have come to know it. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East missed an important point. In 1974, the Labour Government put forward the housing association movement in its modern form. That action was based on all-party support.
It is fair to point out that the legislation was considered in detail by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was picked up by the Labour Government and put into effect. It had all-party support. The present Government have busted that consensus wide open, and have put housing associations in an incredibly difficult position. The hon. Gentleman should not say that housing associations do not mind that. They are deeply worried. I concede that they are now divided—some support the Bill and some are against it—and that division is doing much damage.

Mr. Kirkhope: The legislation was drafted by the Conservative Government in 1974. If the hon. Gentleman will check the matter, he will see that barely any amendment was moved by his party. The inspiration of the Conservative Government led to the housing association legislation. It is important to remember that point.

Mr. Soley: I do not object to the hon. Gentleman taking up the time of the House by repeating what I have said. Some amendments were made, but there was all-party agreement. The Labour Government enacted what they picked up from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. That is what happened. This Government are busting the consensus wide open.
The problem is that some housing associations may wish to move up-market, when the Minister for Housing and Planning actually realises that there is a crisis in low-cost rented accommodation and when we need more housing associations, more local authorities, and more co-operatives providing for the lower end of the market. Obviously, if some housing associations choose to move up-market, they are free to do so. But they must not expect an open-ended Government subsidy, either under the present Government or under a future Labour Government. If they provide up-market accommodation, they carry the responsibility of arranging finance for it. The priority for a Labour Government will and must be good-quality, low-cost homes for people on low incomes. Investors who do not recognise that fact will burn their fingers.
The housing market is not and cannot be a free market. Conservative Members keep falling into the trap of talking about it as though it were a free market—it cannot be; there are too many imperfections in it. At best, using economists' language, it is an inelastic market, in which change takes time. But several other factors—for example, cost and availability of land, alternative uses and the various Government subsidies in the form of tax relief and

regional grant—affect the supply of housing and make it nonsense to talk about a free market in the way that the Government do.
Where there is scarcity, a Labour Government will arrange for rents to be set independently of the landlord. I predict that even this Government will return to that sooner or later. They will do so because they will find that the growing sense of scarcity in the low-cost accommodation sector—be it for rent or for purchase—will drive them to it. As the housing crisis worsens, and as more people sleep out or are forced into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, so the Government will be forced to address the problem. As the Government take off the Rent Act tenancies, they are aggravating the problem that they are seeking to solve.
It is important that that message goes out loud and clear, not only to investors, but to everyone in the housing association movement. We set up the housing association movement with all-party support. The Tory Government have broken that consensus and placed housing associations in a difficult position. We will continue to support housing associations as long as they remain true to the principles on which they were set up. That is the important aspect that is being placed at risk by the Government's absurd legislation.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): Though I would put the rhetorical points differently, I can agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said. That is that no one wants the housing association movement to move away from doing the job for which it has been funded under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We want it to do more. I do not think that anyone would thank me for widening this point into a general debate about housing associations, which we shall be coming to later. However, there are one or two points to deal with now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) said, it is right that the experimental mixed-funding scheme is a small part of the funding of the Housing Corporation. About £60 million has been put into the scheme and there have been £700 million worth of bids from interested housng associations. That shows the amount of interest that there is in the scheme. I do not believe that the people who have put forward those bids —some of whom are in my hon. Friend's part of the country—are departing from their traditions. They are seeking to make the money go further and have more useful, low-cost housng built, which is the objective of all of us. I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. The House would want to know if the subsidies did not produce housing at low market rents. That is clearly what they are meant to achieve. We shall continue the subsidies.
I can dispose of one small point that the hon. Member of Hammersmith raised.

Mr. Soley: Before the Minister moves on, the scheme is not producing more low-cost rented accommodation in the housing association movement.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member knows, the mixed spending scheme has only just started, with a tiny sum of money in the first year and the grant levels too low. Therefore, we have put more money into it and we are developing it as we go along. The scheme is now beginning


to work. I have visited, as the hon. Member probably has, some useful schemes that have already been carried out in the second year of the experimental programme.
One small hare that has been started running by a genuine misunderstanding in the National Federation of Housing Associations can be laid to rest. The hon. Member for Hammersmith alleges that we are affecting the rights of 500,000 existing people. That is not so. We are certainly not resiling from the pledge to maintain people's existing rights. We shall, of course, need a saving provision to exclude from the repeal provison in schedule 13 those who are in existing secure tenancies. That would normally be done in a commencement order under a Bill like this, but, as it is so important, it will be on the face of the Bill itself. Obviously, we must do that, and that is a technical amendment which will be brought forward. Clearly, that is just a misunderstanding. We have written to Mr. Page of the NFHA, who has probably briefed the hon. Member for Hammersmith on this, to explain that point to him.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to for the commitment that the Minister will amend that matter, but will he tell us when he will do this? Will it be more legislation on the hoof? Will we get it at a later stage in here or is he proposing to do it for the House if Lords?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Hammersmith is really pushing this slightly thin line a little bit too far. Normally, it would be done in the commencement order of the Bill. We can do that if he wishes and wait until next April. That would be the normal way of doing it. However, we thought that it would be better to put it on the face of the Bill.
However, the hon. Member for Hammersmith presses me never to make another concession to him again.— [Interruption.] That is the message I have received from his behaviour in the past couple of days.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the question of the state of the housing association tenants, is the Minister saying that the present security for all housing association tenants will be underwritten and guaranteed, not just on the right to buy, but that all their present security will be guaranteed?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows, there are broadly two categories among present housing association tenants. There are tenants of registered housing associations, who are secure tenants with the right to buy, and all the rest of it. There are also tenants of unregistered associations, who are usually—not in every case because some of them may already be on secure tenancies—Rent Act tenants, without the right to buy. Some hon. Members have been asking whether all those tenants in the housing association movement have the right to buy. Of course, they do not all have the right to buy. If they are tenants of charitable housing associations, they do not have it. They also do not have it if they are Rent Act tenants. However, all existing rights will be continued.

Mr. Hughes: For both categories?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, for both categories.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me about the assignment of tenancies. There is no problem about that. I am advised that the Bill

makes our intention clear. If a fixed term protected tenancy is assigned or devolves by inheritance, it will remain protected even after the commencement of the Bill.
I think I made this point in Committee, but it is perhaps worth making again. People have the right to register a fair rent, even after the commencement of the Bill. If they are in the category of Rent Act tenants who have never got around to, or chosen to register, a fair rent, they can do so at any time. Their rights under their existing tenancies continue indefinitely.
The purpose of our amendments was to undertake the commitment that we made in Committee. I think that it was I who made that commitment. It is to be found in column 603 of the Committee Hansard. That commitment was at the commencement of the legislation to provide additional protection for people who are tenants of private landlords or housing associations who might be required to be moved around. One can imagine that that might be necessary in hostels and other types of accommodation, and might be good housing management.
I said in Committee that we were inclined to do it only for tenants of the same landlord. That is what the amendments provide and there can be no doubt about it. Tenants moved within the property of the same landlord would obtain secure tenancies on the same basis. We said in Committee—and we have stuck to it—that we were doubtful about doing it for transfers because that would greatly increase the number of Rent Act tenancies. Therefore, we have not moved further. I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would have liked us to move further but we have not.
I cannot accept the argument that people who happen to share the same management agent might gain a secure tenancy from it. That would have the most peculiar random effects. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey as a lawyer—I am glad to see that he has recovered from his cold—would regard it as a matter of some importance that it would produce tremendous uncertainty and argument subsequently about what had been the status of a tenancy at the beginning. It would depend on who the managing agent was and that might have no relationship to the property ownership at all. I should have thought that that would have been an odd procedure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am aware of the possible general difficulty. However, one of the things that happens, as the Minister is aware, is that there are often transfers of ownership between a holding company and a subsidiary company—different companies in the same group. There are a lot of companies in the private sector which will transfer ownership from one company to another, which may be technical in one sense, but in terms of legal ownership it is fundamental. The management is carried on by the same agency—the same firm of estate agents, surveyors or whatever—and transfers take place for reasons that have nothing to do with the management of the property or the good of the tenants.
There are a lot of mischiefs which, I am sure, the Minister will want to prevent when dealing with some of the worst landlords—corporate landlords—and which are
occasioned by transfers between one technically "corporate" owner and another. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that problem because it seems


something that he would not want to slip through the net. My amendment sought to protect such moves which, at the moment, might be to the disadvantage of the tenant.

8 pm

Mr. Waldegrave: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, his method of making the managing agent the test would produce some peculiar anomalies. I want to argue against him and I claim that our amendments are much clearer than amendment No. 307. Our amendment states that there is no question but that the tenant becomes a secured tenant. We do not give the option for negotiation about whether or not he wants to choose to become an assured tenant, first because clarity is important and we do not want subsequent arguments about "Did he agree, or did he not?" and the landlord saying, "Oh yes, he did," and so on. We want it to be clear that there is no legal argument. The tenant continues to be a secured tenant. That is the first and most important point.
Secondly, if we opened up the idea that there could be negotiation, one might open up just the pressures which hon. Members of all parties would be against if there was the option of pushing people into an assured tenancy. There will not be an option. The tenancy becomes secured automatically, which is right.
Amendment No. 80 goes much wider than our amendments. Its effect could be that tenants of registered housing associations with new-style assured tenancies who have never had a fair rent tenancy of the old kind would, if they moved to another dwelling let by the same or a different association, get a housing association tenancy subject to part VI of the Rent Act 1977. That seems extremely odd because they might never have been in such a situation. I think that amendment No. 80 was a probing rather than a serious amendment.
I have dealt with amendment No. 299, the point of which is absolutely essential and clearly we must deal with it. As I have said, we shall deal with it not in the commencement order, but on the face of the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome that.
We have moved to meet some commitment that we made in Committee and which will improve the Bill—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to go even further. I am willing to give way to him once more.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister appears inadvertently to have missed the question about whether the protection continues if a fixed term protected tenancy ends at the same time the landlord changes, even with a new landlord. That is a specific question that I have been asked and which I now ask the Minister.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I should be absolutely sure and get a lawyer's answer on that, so that I will not mislead the hon. Gentleman. I shall write to him about it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will agree that, although they want us to go further, we have met two commitments that we made in Committee and that the drafting has met our objectives.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has certainly clarified for me some things that were not clear. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but speaking for myself, the right course is to go away and consult lawyers and to await the Minister's letter on the one remaining matter. That is the responsible way forward, because there will be opportunities in another place, where as the Minister knows, the housing association movement has many friends. If any matters remain unresolved here, they will no doubt be pursued in the other place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:No. 48, in page 23, line 2, leave out from second 'was' to 'or' in line 5 and insert
'a protected or statutory tenant and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord (or one of the joint landlords) under the protected or statutory tenancy'.
No. 49 in page 23, line 42, leave out from second 'was' to 'tenancy' in line 46 and insert
'a protected occupier or statutory tenant, within the meaning of the 1976 Act, and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord or licensor (or one of the joint landlords or licensors) under the protected occupancy or statutory'.;—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 33

Orders of the Day — REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC.

Amendments made, No. 50, in page 24, line 8, leave out from second 'was' to `or' in line 11 and insert
'a tenant under a housing association tenancy and is so granted by the person who at that time was the landlord under that housing association tenancy'.
No. 51, in page 24, line 43, leave out from second 'was' to end of line 45 and insert
'a secure tenant and is so granted by the body which at that time was the landlord or licensor under the secure tenancy'— -[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 37

STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION

Mr. Robin Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (1).

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 27, line 42, leave out
'paragraphs 5 to 8 of'.
No. 4, in page 28, line 1, leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7).
No. 215, in page 28, line 44, leave out subsection (9).
No. 305, in page 28, line 44, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
No. 5, in schedule 4, page 85, line 25, leave out paragraph 1.
No. 6, in page 85, line 38 leave out paragraphs 3 to 8. Government amendments Nos. 275 to 281.

Mr. Squire: In moving amendment No. 2, which is tabled in my name and that of various Labour and Social and Liberal Democratic Members, I shall obviously seek to comment on amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
To those hon. Members who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, a little explanation might be needed. I readily confess that my amendments do not clarify the issue. However, we are discussing the important question of carers in our society—those people, often relatives, who give up their existing homes to look after aging or infirm relatives.
I make no apology for returning to this subject, which I raised in Committee. Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State listened as courteously as he always does to reasoned arguments, he felt unable on that occasion to concede any ground. Therefore, I return to those arguments today. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make some passing comments about the Government amendments that are to be considered at the same time.
At present, the law is that anyone who gives up their home, whether rented or owned, to move to look after a relative, will succeed to that person's tenancy after six months. I do not know whether there has been any widespread abuse of that. If there has been, I am sure that my hon. Friend will give us the figures at the appropriate time. However, in the absence of any knowledge of abuse, clause 37 and schedule 4 reveal that, instead of the period being six months, in future it will be five years. That is excessive both in itself and by comparison with the existing law.
We owe an enormous debt to the people who give up their time and homes to look after relatives in their own home rather than seek to have them released into the wider community at a considerably greater charge and, no doubt, with less advantage to the aging or infirm relative. The Bill does such people no service and has greatly worried organisations such as Age Concern, which has written to me, and Shelter, which believes that the present proposals go too far. This evening I wish briefly—seeing the Minister's amendments encourages me to think that if I speak briefly I may achieve something that I am seeking, whereas when I spoke at length in Committee, I was unsuccessful —to say that we owe a great deal to those carers and that we must be seen to look after them.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has spoken at great length and on different occasions about the important role that carers play in our society. We must recognise that and say that five years is far too long. Ideally, I should like the period to revert to six months, which is the purport of my amendments.
I notice and naturally welcome the Government's amendments. I notice also that in the way of these things it is possible to amend schedule 4 without amending clause 37. I wish that I had access to the same advice as my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Never mind, the purpose of his amendments is precisely the same as mine, with the single obvious exception that the period now becomes two years. Clearly, that is an improvement on the five-year qualification period that we were otherwise facing. That must be welcomed although I naturally wish to hear from my hon. Friend why his proposal is not for six months, as I moved in Committee and move now.

Ms. Primarolo: In Committee, the Minister said:
We believe"—
that is, the Government believe—
that succession rights have been as important as rent control in driving rented property off the market … It would be easy to seem caring by reinstating the right, but it would lead to further drying up of rented property."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 February 1988; c. 614.]

We totally refute that and ask the Minister, if he can, to provide us today with proof for his assertion. We believe, and organisations such as Age Concern believe, that there is no sign that succession rights have proved to be a difficulty in the private rented sector.
We believe that it is crucial to link the Government's policy on succession rights with their so-called "care in the community" policy. At present, it is estimated that one in five women over 40 are responsible for dependent relatives. The Government's care in the community policy increases the burden on women, but carers are often forgotten when housing policy is discussed. They were forgotten when this section of the Housing Bill was drafted, because their needs and responsibilities were totally ignored.
It is estimated that women living with elderly tenants in the private sector account for about 60 per cent. of private protected tenants aged over 65 years. The Government's proposals to remove from them the right to take over a tenancy or succeed to one on the death of a relative by elongating the period of qualification, seems wholly inappropriate.
At the moment, there are three significant proposed changes to the current arrangements in the Bill. First, where a tenant is protected under the Rent Act 1977—in other words an existing tenant when the Housing Act 1988 comes into force—a relative would have to have lived with the tenant for the previous five years instead of the present proposal of six months. The proposals in the Bill would enforce homelessness on those who have cared for relatives if they then die before having lived with them for five years. It is unbelievable that at a time of great stress and sorrow for families, carers might find themselves with the additional problem of homelessness.
The second proposed change would mean that a relative would have no right to succeed to a protected tenancy if the relative qualified under the five-year regulation. Instead, she—I say "she" specifically because I do not want that to be translated into "he" in Hansard in the sense that "he" always means "he or she"; in the majority of cases when we talk about carers we mean women in our communities—would succeed to an assured tenancy. In other words, that carer would probably face a massive increase in rent and be subject to the landlord's potential use of much more wide-ranging grounds for possession than those covered in the Rent Act 1977. The third change would mean that, where a tenancy begins after the Housing Act 1988 comes into force, the carer will have no right of succession.
The Government want to help landlords to increase the supply of rented accommodation by ensuring that, when an existing regulated tenancy comes to an end, any succession is to an assured tenancy only. The Government have stated that the rights of existing tenants will not be affected by the Bill. They continue to explain that that is the case. However, as I have said, and as Age Concern has been at great pains to stress, we are extremely anxious about the effects of the Bill on family members who care for elderly people.
Carers who have been living with a relative for less than five years may be made homeless when that relative dies. Many carers will have to decide to give up a home to care for a relative whose health is deteriorating. Age Concern also knows of no evidence that the right of succession is being abused and therefore why the period of qualification should be extended to five years.
8.15 pm
Carers who have been living with relatives for more than five years will be entitled to succeed, but only to an assured tenancy. Many of the carers who have given up their own accommodation may well be on low or modest incomes and are extremely unlikely to be able to afford the new market rents that they will be required to pay under the new regulations. Therefore, they will be forced out of their accommodation even though they have some nominal rights, simply because they cannot afford the rent.
The chances of their finding alternative accommodation are not high. Only assured or assured shorthold tenancies will be available in the independent rented sector. Most local authorities will have enormous housing waiting lists. For example, there are already 14,000 people on the waiting list in Bristol. There will be very little chance of a local authority being able to house a single woman.
Many people who give up their homes to care for an elderly relative in the private rented sector will not realise that they will be forfeiting their rights to the right to a home in future. The Government have put pressure on women to take up responsibilities and burdens in the community; women recognise that if they do not care for an elderly relative, no one else will because the Government have made cuts by their policy of care in the community. As a result, we know that, despite the restrictions facing carers in securing a home after the death of a relative, the considerations of care and love for the relative are likely to override the possibility that the carer might find herself homeless.
The Government are exploiting the feelings and responsibilities of many women in our community to pave the way for the greater exploitation of tenants in the private sector. That is simply not good enough.
The Government have issued guidance document LAC (85)2 to local authorities on the treatment of a dwelling house when an elderly home owner has to go into residential care leaving a relative at home. That acknowledges that, if that family member seems to have been a principal supporter and has no other home, local authorities have discretion to ignore or discount the capital value of the home in assessing whether it is to be used to pay for home fees.
The proposals on succession contradict the Government's care in the community policy which relies heavily on family carers. We do not support the Government's care in the community policies, but we believe that it is outrageous in one Newspeak that they should say that we should recognise and give a place to carers in the community and recognise their contributions, while another Ministry attempts to take rights away from the same people.
At a Conservative party conference fringe meeting in October 1987, organised by the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, the Minister for Health emphasised the Government's commitment to supporting informal carers, recognising that they are the bedrock on which community care provision is based. The lack of alternatives to family care further underlines the Government's dependence on formal carers. Yet the Government have the audacity to place before the House proposals which will mean that widows could find themselves homeless, having lost the right to succeed to a

protected tenancy, and that single parents moving in to care for elderly parents will lose their right to tenancy unless they have lived at the property for five years.
That is another example of the Government's attempt to exploit those in our community who give freely of their care and support, and who so allow the Government to avoid paying for the cost of that care out of the Exchequer. Because of that shame and the way in which the Government have treated carers in other areas, the Government should remove the restrictions in the Bill and allow the succession right proposed in the previous Rent Act to remain with a six-month qualification remaining intact.
We strongly made the case for that change in Committee, when the Minister said that he sympathised and that it was a difficult decision to make. I hope that today the Minister will say that, because of the problems which carers in particular face in our community, their right to succession on the death of a relative will be reinstated with a qualification period of six months rather than five years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In Committee there was all-party agreement from the Back Benches and it is important that the same degree of agreement is in evidence now. I wish to underline both the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the important betrayal that there has been on the fundamental issue. Later, we shall debate succession rights within the new assured tenancy regime, but that is not the subject of this debate. It concerns succession rights for tenants currently protected by the Rent Act. Unless the Government are prepared to make a concession, their proposals give the lie to their assertion that they are not taking rights from people who already have them, because that is not the truth. The Government's succession proposals would clearly take away rights which people have acquired.
The Government have now come clean about that aspect, because a Government press release dated 7 June states:
The succession rules are modified to make them fairer to landlords.
That is certainly true, and it is now the case. The Government's previous argument that the position of Rent Act tenants would not be changed is now shown to have been deceptive.
In Committee, it was argued that people should not lose rights retrospectively, and that to make people wait for five years when they have already qualified by virtue of the previous six-month rule would be unfair. Concessions have been made in that respect, which I acknowledge. What remains unaltered is the Government's position in respect of the request made in Committee—which we forced to a vote on both the clause and the schedule because of the strength of feeling—that the right to succession should remain if one were resident at the property in question for six months.
I could understand the logic of the argument, if the Government were to advance it, to increase the period of qualification to one year, because that is the present requirement for succession in the case of council property tenants. However, the Government are arguing for a period twice that length, of two years, and their case for that needs to be clearly made.
The hon. Members for Bristol, South and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) made the case that the people


most vulnerable are in large measure women and the elderly. I wish to cite the concern felt about this matter by personalising it to some degree. Last December, my constituency office received a telephone call from a constituent of mine named Miss Fuller, who lives in Larcom street, Walworth. She wanted to know how her housing situation would be affected by the Bill. The point was not clear and the head of my constituency office discussed the matter with me. I made inquiries and wrote back to Miss Fuller. She in turn, as I had suggested, made inquiries of her landlord's managing agents. My advice to her was to seek a joint tenancy with her mother.
On 3 December, the landlord's agents replied:
Thank you for your letter of 2nd December, regarding your application to have your present tenancy, which is in your Mother's name, to be expanded to include your own. I regret"—
here comes the surprise—
at the present time that due to the fact that we have contracted to sell the freehold of No. 55, we are unable to agree to your request.
Incidentally. she did not know that the property was to be sold. The letter went on:
However, as and when the sale has been completed, when we shall be continuing to manage the property, we will approach the new owners of the property with your request which of course at this stage I am unable to forecast the outcome.
Miss Fuller wrote to me in January:
This is just to thank you for your letter of 7th December in which you promise to attempt an amendment in the new Housing Bill to ensure that people in my position have some security of tenure. Luckily, although my mother is in her late 60s, I am not yet in the position of having to 'care' for her, but I am sure that there are people in the position of 'carer' who will be affected by this Bill.
She goes on to express precisely the same concern as that raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South—that she will be entitled only to an assured tenancy and not one protected by the Rent Acts. The reality of that is a substantially greater rent, for instead of paying a fair rent she will have to pay a market rent. In some years' time, she will herself be in her 50s or 60s and will probably be unable to succeed to the home in which she and her mother have already lived for seven years and in the street in which she has lived all her life. That is the reality of the situation.
The Government promised that the rights of tenants currently protected would not be adversely affected. The present proposal is a betrayal of that promise. The Minister should be decent to the House and to many vulnerable and important people in the community, and he should respond to massive external concern and give people the succession rights to which they are entitled.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to participate in this debate, although I did not serve on the Standing Committee because I was attending another Committee at the time, as other hon. Members who served with me will remember.
This matter is of considerable concern to those involved in disability politics and in caring for the elderly. Coincidentally, in my constituency surgery this morning, I was presented with a case that underlines the kind of problems facing relatives when they give up their own homes to look after an elderly disabled person and that person then dies. The case I encountered this morning was most invidious, and none of the amendments would have catered for it. It involved an elderly relative who died just two weeks after the carers had given up their own home. They could not turn the clock back and retrieve their old

home or have a right to the new one. One can never have a safety net that will protect everyone. None the less, one must try to ensure that legislation makes the best possible sense under all circumstances. The Minister would have to make a very strong case for changing the existing provision. I am glad to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), to bring even more all-party support for the change he proposes.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) spoke of the Government's care in the community policies. I would not wish to give any impression of being against those policies, but some of us have misgivings about whether they are sufficiently generous and go far enough. I am glad that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is in the Chamber, given the struggle we had to obtain adequate resources for the full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which he sponsored.

Ms. Primarolo: I was not seeking to denigrate the principle of care in the community. I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, that the Government make a sham of that principle. They are trying to get policy on the cheap rather than proper care in the community.

Mr. Wigley: That is the point. I may disagree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) about that. Care in the community is not necessarily a cheaper option, but we should support it because it is right in terms of human dignity and family values. We should ensure that those who make enormous sacrifices, often late in life—and they are often single women—are cared for properly.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the costs that can hit those who lose the security of the rent levels previously paid. That can indeed be a blow. Someone looking after an aging and infirm relative, having been in receipt of attendance allowance, probably at the higher level—and possibly mobility allowance as well—may find that all the money stops coming in at the same time. It is likely that such people will face increased rents at the very time when there is a reduced income to sustain the household. Often there is only one carer, whose age may make it very difficult for him or her to go out into the community to look for work—particularly in areas such as mine where there is high unemployment. We should introduce policies that do their utmost to secure the position. of carers.
The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation arid Representation) Act 1986, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West contained a charter for carers. Concern has been expressed by those in all parts of the political spectrum about the necessity for better consideration for the needs of people who sacrifice so much for the disabled and elderly. While I acknowledge that the Government seem likely to move some way towards meeting their arguments, as it stands the Bill is retrograde.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend when he reminds the House, as he does so often and so eloquently, that substantial sections of the 1986 Act that were so firmly supported have not yet been implemented. Does he not agree that it is tragic that the Government are trying to push through yet another


measure that will be conspicuously unhelpful to carers, when we have waited for two years for those sections to be implemented?

Mr. Wigley: Absolutely. A policy for disabled and eldely people, and for those who look after them, should be a seamless web. It should be integrated into a single thrust. Unfortunately, the present thrust seems negative in many ways. We are not making progress with the Act brought forward by my hon. Friend, which would be of such great benefit. Indeed, we seem again to be moving backwards. I appeal to the Government at least to try to provide some coherence in their legislative policies, and to ensure that they run from one Department to another.
The length of time for which a carer may be living with the person for whom he or she cares is open-ended. Carers move in not knowing whether the people for whom they are caring will live for a month, a year or 10 years. It can be an enormous commitment, and the sacrifice can be equally enormous. The position can be particularly difficult when the relative concerned dies after a fairly short time. Many district council areas have a qualification for housing residents: they must have lived in the area for a certain period—for a year of even two years. If someone has been there for six months or a year and the relative dies, they may not be entitled immediately to get rented accommodation from the district council. They will not be a priority under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, yet they will be in danger of losing the tenancy.
I hope that the Government, in conceding that the threshold should be brought down to two years, as the amendments appear to suggest, will be prepared—if not tonight, in another place—to go along with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and do what they can to maintain the status quo, so that at least we do not make things worse for the people who give so much.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me first congratulate you on your 15th anniversary in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), you and I are today celebrating 15 years in the House. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have weathered the storm rather better than my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is most generous, but he really should not draw the Chair into the debate.

Mr. McCartney: You know what I am like, Madam Deputy Speaker. I never learn from experience in these matters.
I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on returning from Finland in time for the meat of the debate. The Minister of State was rather tetchy the other evening when she was not here to help him out then things got difficult. I am sure that this evening she will give us some words of wisdom about why the Minister has done a partial U-turn, insufficient to deal with my concerns and those of my hon. Friends.
The principle behind the amendment was debated on two occasions, on 19 January and 4 February. In both instances the Minister failed to take account of the cross-party objections to what was being proposed, and at

no time gave an indication that he was prepared to concede the principle for which we argued. He made his view clear to me—I had tabled the amendments that we were discussing on 19 January, when he said that he was "
coming too clean for the hon. Member for Macklesfield". —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 19 January 1988; c. 305.]
He meant that he was prepared to reject the amendments. The Government felt that succession ran contrary to the whole concept of the Bill, in that the Bill was concerned with providing an immediate access to the owner of the property. If that access was through death, so be it. The Bill would give the landlord the opportunity to take possession of the property.
During that debate and the subsequent debate on 4 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and I pursued the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) attempted at every stage to give the Minister an opportunity to backtrack and say that he was wrong. However, he rejected all our approaches. At the end of the debate, he refused in any circumstances to accept an amendment to help carers who have had to move house to look after elderly or chronically ill relatives.
We have dealt with amendments proposed by Age Concern. Before I came to the House, I dealt daily with the problems of the physically handicapped, many of whom were not elderly. Unfortunately, because of the nature of their illnesses, they never reached retirement or even middle age. In many instances elderly parents suffered infirmity or death, and a friend or another member of the family would have to move in to care for them. That group will be affected further by the Government's proposals.
This is a missed opportunity for the Minister to respond to the strength of feeling expressed on two occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Minister has not answered the questions that I put to him on 4 February. At the time of death, the tenancy is in the market place. It is available for rent. If the family wishes to continue the tenancy, why are the Government proposing to restrict the right of that family to continue it? Even if the family is allowed to continue the tenancy, why are the Government changing its fundamental nature, particularly rent levels?
After a death, the landlord has a number of choices to make about the tenancy. The landlord could sell the property for commercial or residential use or he could allow the family to continue to live in the property. Unless the property goes to the tenant, it comes out of the market place. That is against the whole concept of the Bill. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to retain tenancies in the market place, but if the landlord wishes to evict a tenant, he can then sell the property for commercial or other uses. That leaves local authorities and the Government with the problem of homelessness. There is no logic behind the Government's amendments. They say that they need to restrict succession because they want properties to remain in the private rented sector. However, if a family wishes to continue the tenancy, the legislation allows the landlord to remove the tenant and take the property out of the private rented sector. That will lead to homelessness.
The Bill also makes provision for new tenancies, but what is the logic of that? The property already has a tenant, who may have a wife or a child. If the tenant dies and the tenancy is offered to somebody else, the wife or the


child of the tenant will be left homeless. No additional accommodation is to be provided for them. What is the logic of that? If the tenant is removed from the property and the landlord decides not to offer it to another tenant at a higher rent but to sell the property for purposes unconnected with the private rented sector, it will lead to homelessness and to the removal of private sector rented property from the market place. That makes no sense.
I accept that the Minister is attempting to increase the private rented sector but the amendments mean that tenancies will be removed from the market place. Landlords will be able to take their property out of the private rented sector. The Minister must explain why he is doing that. It will happen every day after the Bill becomes an Act. He must explain this intellectual difficulty. The amendments will lead to a reduction in succession rights. The Government want to ensure that property remains in the private rented sector but tenants will be made homeless.
8.45 pm
The Minister has argued against the six months' entitlement. I do not understand why, because the Government say that they are committed to looking after the carers in the community. My hon. Friends referred to the arguments advanced by many organisations. The Secretary of State for Social Services says that local authorities and the social services should provide resources for care in the community. They want people to be looked after in the community instead of being transferred to institutional care, and they want those who are now in institutional care to be looked after in the home. However, the Government's proposals will lead to persons who are looking after sick people being evicted when those sick people die. Under this legislation, carers can be evicted.
It would not be so had if the Government were proposing to move a further amendment that would lead to additional resources being made available to local authorities and housing associations to provide for the carers. Instead, the Government are proposing to reduce still further the rights of local authorities and housing associations to provide for the carers.
This is an absolute hotch-potch, and the Minister knows it. In Committee he was purple with embarrassment. He may lift his bushy eyebrows and ask me what I am talking about, but he knows precisely what I am talking about. In Committee he was severely embarrassed about having to defend his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. What he said in Committee and is saying now is not his own view.
The Minister is an honourable gentleman. I do not believe that he wants a carer who has looked after a sick person for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to be evicted. I do not believe for a moment that he wants to have to defend such a proposal at the Dispatch Box. Because he was severely embarrassed, the Minister, behind the scenes, went back to his right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State and said to him, "Look here, we have a problem, I cannot defend our policy. But it is a long time before the next general election, and as I am not prepared to resign we had better come up with a compromise." In reality, the compromise is meaningless to those in the community who will have to implement the legislation. It is meaningless for the carer and it is absolutely meaningless for the family.
If the Minister does not believe me, he should believe his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).

Despite our clashes in Committee, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sincere. I do not believe for a minute that all that he is trying to do is to kid the electors of Hornchurch into thinking that he cares for his constituents. The Minister should believe those of his hon. Friends who, in their own guises, put forward the views of various organisations, because they are the same points as I am making.
I ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box not just to withdraw the amendments but to make a commitment that he will return to the House later, or in another place, with proposals to meet the concerns of hon. Members and of those in the community who look after the disabled. Without such a commitment to carers in the community, he will do a major injustice to carers. If somebody gives up his own home to care for a member of the family or a friend, he could eventually find himself thrown out into the street as the victim of market forces. I do not believe that any hon. Member would vote for such a change in the legislation.
For the third time, I ask the Minister to withdraw the amendments and to return to the House with a meaningful solution that will meet the concerns that were expressed in Committee. They were expressed not because of party-political rancour but because of genuine concern for those who work for the disabled, the carers in the community. I ask the Government to deal with the practicalities of the market place and with what will happen if the Bill becomes law. Even at this late stage, I cannot believe that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and defend the Secretary of State's proposals. By defending that, the Minister is defending the indefensible and the proposition that carers should be evicted because the person for whom they have cared has died.

Mr. Waldegrave: The House is seldom more eloquent than when it is disposing of someone else's property. That, after all, is what this is all about. Ever since the iniquitous Rent Act started, we have, where fair rents are lower than market rents—which I imagine is most of the country—been disposing of other people's property rather than facing the consequences of providing people with the resources necessary to buy into the market by voted housing benefit or by providing subsidised housing, also through funds voted by the House. More or less randomly, both parties, but especially the party which introduced the Rent Act, have taken certain people's property and also, rather randomly, passed the benefit of it to a group of tenants. That is not defensible.
When trying to get out of that muddle, we have the difficulty of having various vested interests to deal with. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), alone in the Committee, drew attention to the six-month people. We have taken the view that they, and others who live with people with Rent Act tenancies, should have some rights to security. All the eloquence, so easily deployed by the Opposition on this issue, is simply another way of saying that the people who should take responsibility for looking after such people are the landlords who have been caught at random by the Act. That is not a very high claim for justice.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was honest enough to say that the Government did not move at all on this issue in Committee. There were three Divisions on closely related proposals which the Committee rejected. Nevertheless, we listened to the


arguments and we have come up with the compromise —getting out of such situations is bound to lead to some compromise—of suggesting that it would be right to offer security under the assured tenancy regime.
It must be a matter of judgment whether we alight on six months, two years or five years. We have settled on two years as a reasonable step forward and as the time after which one can reasonably say that a person has made their home somewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and others will recognise that we have gone some way to meet the point, although not as far as they would like. The further we go, the more we perpetuate the injustice inherent in the fact that the House has previously, more or less randomly, confiscated part of the capital value of a landlord's property, finding that an easier way to popularity than dealing with housing policy properly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has moved from five years to two years. That is an improvement. An argument has been made out for six months. The House will be interested to know why the Minister did not accept one year, as that is the period of security of tenure in other legislation which the Government have proposed, most noticeably for people in local authority property. It would seem logical to have a common base. The two years would also be one year better for those people who face the prospect of being protected for one and a half years less.

Mr. Waldegrave: The argument works both ways. We took the view that two years seemed a reasonable definition of establishment of a home. There is no magic about the figure.
I am well aware that the arguments that we had at great length in Committee exposed the fundamental divide between us. The Opposition think that the easy way to meet the commitment of caring is to take property which was originally let in good faith and, by Act of Parliament, confiscate part of the benefit of it and hand it out. They would be the first to observe, in their gleeful way, that there are more tenants than there are landlords, so that is a more popular way in which to proceed.
It is not a sensible course in terms of housing policy, however. The sensible course is for the Government and local authorities to take responsibility for the provision of low-cost rented housing, if it is needed, and for housing benefit to work in the market. The Rent Act is neither of those. That is why we want to end it as swiftly as possible and why we want to make as few additional loopholes as possible. It is also why, having made some concessions to the arguments made by my hon. Friends and some organisations, we do not wish to go further.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister has not said whether he has discussed the implications of the Griffiths report, which was published after the Committee stage finished but before Report, with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security. If the Government intend to legislate on the basis of that report, they will clearly be backing more care in community. It would involve removing people from institutional care in hospitals to local authority care and providing back-up in the form of old people's homes or sheltered housing so that people do not have to stay in local authority institutional care. Such people may also be looked after by younger relatives or, in

the case of those suffering disabling diseases such as multiple sclerosis, they may be looked after by older relatives. If the Minister has not discussed these issues with his colleagues in the DHSS, he has not done his job properly.

Mr. Waldegrave: This is collective Government policy. Neither the Griffiths report nor any other part of DHSS policy will be based on the extension or continuation of Rent Act tenancies. If there are consequences elsewhere, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider them, but he knows that it is central to the Government's stance that Rent Act tenancies should be wound down as soon as possible.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is disingenuous. If he really was concerned for carers, he would ensure that alternative accommodation was available for those who will be evicted as a result of the Government's proposals. He has not done that, and he is aware that the private sector will not be revived by abolishing the Rent Acts, as we all know that the problem is more to do with housing finance than it is to do with Rent Acts. Because of that, we shall divide the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a sad occasion. The Minister and his colleagues said in the early stages of the Bill that the rights of tenants would be safeguarded. They will not. Towards the end of his speech, the Minister revealed the reality: when it comes to choosing between the rights of people and the rights of property, the Government come down on the side of property. Whatever the compromise, it is not a compromise which meets need. It is a compromise which advances profit and the rights of people best equipped to make it.

9 pm

Mr. Squire: We have had a very important debate on a matter that affects many thousands of people at some stage in their lives. The House is right to devote time to it. I recognise that the House wishes to move to a Division shortly and I shall be brief in my concluding remarks.

Ms. Primarolo: The Minister referred to succession rights as the confiscation of property from the landlord. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the same confiscation as the Government's right-to-buy policy from council housing committees? We are just a little surprised at the Government's reluctance to split both ways and at their double standards.

Mr. Squire: I recognise a whole range of distinctions, including that between state and private ownership. Even in concluding I am anxious not to lose the support of the hon. Lady for my amendment. I very much welcome the unanimous view from the Back Benchers of different Opposition parties. There was a hint of déjà vu about the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Those of us who heard him demonstrate his ability to speak without hesitation, deviation and above all, notes, were impressed. When I sit on a future Committee I shall scan it very carefully to see whether the hon. Gentleman is on it and if he is I shall bring my blanket and my flask of warm drink. He has the ability to talk at great length, which is a tremendous attribute.
The important and serious point is that every hon. Member who spoke stressed that the role of carers is critical in our society and that the Bill as drafted does not assist them in any way.
My hon. Friend the Minister did his best—[Interruption.] I am by temperament one who seeks the middle ground, as is my hon. Friend. He has given half a loaf. Indeed, mathematicians among us would demonstrate that he has given more than half a loaf in moving from five years to two years. I hope only that further reflection—clearly some reflection brought us down from five years to two years—perhaps in another place will bring us down from two years to six months where I believe it should be.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 2

Division No. 348]
[9pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Galbraith, Sam


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blair, Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Boateng, Paul
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boyes, Roland
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Caborn, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ron


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Litherland, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McLeish, Henry


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
McTaggart, Bob


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce





Moonie, Dr Lewis
Short, Clare


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Nellist, Dave
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Wall, Pat


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N.


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Redmond, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gale, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardiner, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Chope, Christopher
Grist, Ian


Churchill, Mr
Ground, Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)






Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maude, Hon Francis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Miller, Sir Hal



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Miscampbell, Norman
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 4

STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION

Amendments made: No. 275, in page 85, line 42, leave out '5 years"; and' and insert '2 years".'

No. 276, in page 85, line 45, at end insert `and

(d) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—,

"(2) If the original tenant died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the original tenant at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the original tenant for the period of 2 years immediately before his death".

No. 277, in page 86, line 13, leave out '5' and insert '2'.

No. 278, in page 86, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) If the first successor died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the first successor at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the first successor for the period of 2 years immediately before his death.".'

No. 279, in page 86, line 19, at end insert—
'8A. At the end of paragraph 11 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"11A. In this Part of this Schedule 'the operative date' means the date on which Part I of the Housing Act 1988 came into force.".'

No. 280, in page 86, line 27, leave out '5' and insert '2'.

No. 281, in page 86, line 44, at end insert—
'(5C) If the original occupier died within the period of 18 months beginning on the operative date, then, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, a person who was residing in the dwelling-house with the original occupier at the time of his death and for the period which began 6 months before the operative date and ended at the time of his death shall be taken to have been residing with the original occupier for the period of 2 years immediately before his death; and in this subsection "the operative date" means the date on which Part I of the Housing Act 1988 came into force."—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 38

JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 29, line 16, after 'III', insert 'and V'.—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 39

RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES: PROCEDURE AND INFORMATION POWERS

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in page 30, line 21, at end insert:
`(5) Proceedings for an offence committed under this section may be instituted by any of the following authorities:

(a) councils or districts and London boroughs;
(b) the Common Council of the City of London;
(c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'.
The amendment has had a chequered history which deserves a mention. It relates to clause 39 and sets out procedural matters in rent assessment committees. Clause 39(2) states that where an RAC has received an application to fix a market rent, it can serve a notice on the landlord


or tenant asking for information. The RAC may need to know, for example, the length of the tenancy, its terms and the details of the premises. It is possible that a landlord will seek to frustrate the proceedings by failing to provide the relevant information. Clause 39(3) states that if that person fails to provide information it will be a criminal offence. That is only right, because if the RAC is to have any credibility, it needs to have powers to ensure that its proceedings are not frustrated.
Who should prosecute such an offence? That is the crucial point. At present, councils, districts and London boroughs have powers to prosecute for similar offences under paragraphs 7(2) and (3) of schedule 11 and sections 149 and 150 of the Rent Act 1977. In Committee, I thought that we had convinced the Government of the need to incorporate this power into the Bill, which will be the primary reference point for the new private rented sector.
I had the memorable experience of being congratulated by the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)—who I am delighted to see in her place after having enjoyed herself in the vast, deep wastes of Finland. The hon. Lady has not told us what she was doing there. Perhaps she was studying igloo construction in case the nuclear winter hits us and we have to live in them. No doubt, when she replies she will tell us exactly what she was doing, if it is repeatable in the House. I remember the hon. Lady saying:
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for drawing attention to this omission in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4 February 1988; c. 625.]
I was grateful for such a gracious compliment. Unfortunately, it has not turned itself into a Government amendment on Report.
In an earlier exchange, the Minister said that section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 covers what we want. I said that I would check, but my advice is that it does not. In her letter to me, the Minister said:
This enables an authority to prosecute in any legal proceedings where they consider it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants in their area.
[Interruption.] I realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has just acquired a new pair of glasses, but I did not realise that he needed a hearing aid as well. Perhaps he should try to get one before the charges for all of them go up.
The legal departments of most borough councils consider that section 222 of the 1972 Act relates to a number of the inhabitants of an area rather than one inhabitant. I do not want to push this matter too much, but perhaps the Minister could obtain some advice or look at the matter again and make it clear that section 222 could be used in respect of one inhabitant in an area. That would meet the terms of the amendment. If we wait a little longer perhaps someone will come to the Minister's assistance with that information. I hope that she will say that the terms of the amendment are acceptable to the Government or that section 222 covers a single individual.

Mr. John Wheeler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret the need to interrupt the proceedings of the House but I have only just succeeded in reaching the Chamber, notwithstanding the fact that a Division was called. I discovered that the doors to Norman Shaw North were locked and hon. Members

were unable to escape from the building to come and vote. Could the Serjeant at Arms be instructed to ensure that the doors are unlocked?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is probably one of the most genuine points of order that has ever been put to me. I shall certainly ensure that the Serjeant at Arms is so instructed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank the hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) for welcoming me back to the House. I was on an official visit to Sweden and Finland to examine housing and planning matters on behalf of the Government.
When the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in Committee, the Government agreed to consider it. On examining the matter further, we concluded that it was unnecessary to give local authorities a specific power to prosecute offences under clause 39 because of their general power to initiate prosecutions in section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. That empowers local authorities to prosecute proceedings when they consider it expedient
for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area".
I have checked and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that provision also relates to a single inhabitant. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 5 May explaining why we did not think that an amendment was needed and I therefore hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40

INFORMATION AS TO DETERMINATIONS OF RENTS

Mrs. Roe: I beg to move Government amendment No. 68, in page 30, leave out line 22.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will he convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 69 and 52

Mrs. Roe: Clause 40 as drafted provides for the president of every rent assessment panel to keep and make available information concerning determinations of rent if required to do so by the Secretary of State. There has never been any question in our mind as to the need for such an order to be made. It has always been our firm intention that the requirement to maintain a register of rents should apply as soon as the Bill takes effect. In Committee it was argued that the legislation ought to leave no doubt as to the matter and we accepted the force of that argument. Amendment Nos. 68 and 69 are therefore designed to alter the wording of clause 40(1) to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State as to whether or not an order is made.
Clause 40 as drafted refers to information relating to the determination of rents by the rent assessment committees. On further consideration, it seems to us that there is a strong case for widening the scope of the provision to take account of the distinctive procedure that will apply to rents under shorthold tenancies.
The House will recall that where a shorthold tenant refers his rent to the rent assessment committee under clause 20, the committee is empowered to make a determination only where there is evidence that the existing rent is above market level. If such evidence is


unavailable, no determination is made. In those circumstances, it seems sensible that arrangements should be made for the publication of information as to rents which have been referred to rent assessment committees under clause 20 but in respect of which no determinations have been made.
Such information will constitute a source of evidence as to the level of rents prevailing in the shorthold market. I am sure that that will be of help to shorthold tenants, both actual and prospective, who seek an indication whether their rent or proposed rent is in line with the market. It will also be useful to rent officers in carrying out their assessment functions for housing benefit purposes.
With that aim in view, amendment No. 52 provides that the information kept and published under clause 40 may relate not just to rents actually determined by assessment committees but to rents which are the subject of references or applications to assessment committees. The details will be covered in the order made by the Secretary of State under the clause.
I am sure that the Opposition will welcome the amendments, which fulfil an undertaking given in Committee.

Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for that and I accept that it is a concession.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 69, in page 30, line 24, leave out 'the order' and insert
'an order made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 52, in page 30, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
'as may be so specified with respect to rents under assured tenancies and assured agricultural occupancies which have been the subject of references or applications to, or determinations by, rent assessment committees.'—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 42

APPLICATION TO CROWN PROPERTY

No. 61, in page 31, line 13, at end add—
'(4) Where an interest belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, then, for the purposes of Chapters I to IV above, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.'—[Mrs. Roe.]

Clause 43

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

No. 53, in page 31, line 47, at end insert- —
'( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that any reference in this Part of this Act (however expressed) to a power for a landlord to determine a tenancy does not include a reference to a power of re-entry or forfeiture for breach of any term or condition of the tenancy.'—[Mrs. Roe]

New Clause 25

HOUSING FOR WALES

'(1) There shall be a body known as Housing for Wales.

(2) Schedule [Housing for Wales] to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of, and other matters relating to, Housing for Wales.

(3) Housing for Wales shall have the functions conferred on it by the Housing Associations Act 1985 as amended in accordance with section [Interpretation of Part II and amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985] below.

(4) All property in Wales which, immediately before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, is held by the Housing Corporation shall on that day be transferred to and vest in Housing for Wales.

(5) Any question whether any property has been transferred to Housing for Wales by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clauses 26 and 27.
Government amendments Nos. 240, 241, 246 to 250, 242 to 245, 251 to 253 and 239.

Mr. Grist: It gives me considerable pleasure to introduce this group of amendments, which deal principally with setting the legislative framework within which the activities of the Housing Corporation in Wales can be put on to an independent footing. Before I begin, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning who, sadly, is not present at this moment, for giving notice in Standing Committee of our intention to table these amendments.
The House may be interested to hear the background to this proposal. Hon. Members will be fully aware of the importance that the Government attach to the work of housing associations, in Wales as well as elsewhere. Associations bring care and voluntary dedication to the task of providing homes for those in need in society.
To date, the role of the housing association movement in Welsh housing has been of steadily growing importance. The Housing Act 1974 was something of a watershed for the movement in that it created the present system of housing association grant and gave the Housing Corporation important new functions of administering Government financial assistance, registering housing associations and monitoring standards of probity and effectiveness. Before the implementation of the 1974 Act, housing association activity in Wales could best be described as of small scale and significance. Since 1974, however, thanks in no small part to the considerable effort put in by the existing Housing Corporation, the movement has grown considerably in strength to a point at which today there are almost 100 registered associations with a total of nearly 20,000 properties under management in Wales.
The new financial regime for associations which the Bill will help to establish will be every bit as important for the future development of the movement as were the provisions of the 1974 Act. Our firm expectation is that the new regime will result in significant increases in the contributions made by associations to meeting housing needs in this country.
9.30 pm
Against the background of the new opportunities that the Bill will herald for associations, the Government have decided that the time is now right for the work of associations in Wales to be supervised by a body that has its roots in Wales, can develop a depth of understanding about the housing problems that we face in the Principality, and is fully capable of leading the development of strategies to meet problems within a policy framework set by the Secretary of State for Wales.


Although the provisions necessary to establish Housing for Wales appear somewhat formidable, there is but a single point of principle involved, as I shall explain.
I can tell the House that the idea of establishing Housing for Wales, which will be known in Welsh as Tai Cymru, was the subject of a consultation paper issued by the Welsh Office last December. It was circulated to all local authorities in Wales, all housing associations active in Wales, and to representatives of professional and voluntary bodies with direct interest in Welsh housing, including the building industry, consumer associations, and groups concerned with the provision of housing for those with special needs.
I am pleased to inform the House that, of more than 40 substantive responses made to the consultation paper, only one was opposed to the principle of establishing the independence of the Housing Corporation in Wales. The great majority of responses proffered overwhelming support for the proposal. On the basis of that support within Wales, I ask the House to give its approval to this measure.
It might be helpful for hon. Members if I explain briefly what each of the amendments is intended to do. Before I do that, I should like to make two general points about the legislative basis that we wish to establish for Housing for Wales.
First, as I have said, Housing for Wales is intended to perform in Wales those functions that presently fall or are proposed to fall to the Housing Corporation as a result of this Bill. We are not seeking to give Housing for Wales any more or any fewer powers to exercise in Wales than the Housing Corporation will have to exercise in England.
Secondly, where the legislation gives the Secretary of State powers to introduce directions governing the exercise of their functions by the corporation, it will be possible for different directions to he proposed for Housing for Wales. Whether or not that is done will initially be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State, in consultation with Housing for Wales and other relevant groups within Wales as necessary.
New clause 25, together with amendment No. 240, the new Schedule entitled "Housing for Wales", establishes Housing for Wales as a body corporate, controlled by a board of members appointed by the Secretary of State, and effectively with the same powers and functions as the Housing Corporation. The schedule sets out the detailed provisions relating to the status, membership, staff and proceedings of Housing for Wales. With the exception of certain matters concerning the board and dealing with staff —paragraphs 7 to 11—for which there are no comparable provisions relating to the Housing corporation, the schedule mirrors schedule 6 to the Housing Associations Act 1985, which sets the constitution of the Housing Corporation. The provisions relating to staff follow closely the relevant proposed provisions relating to the transfer of the Housing Corporation's functions in Scotland to Scottish Homes.
New clause 26 provides for the transfer of registered housing associations in Wales from the register of the Housing Corporation to that of Housing for Wales at an appointed time. Housing for Wales will thus assume the role of registration, funding, and monitoring body for those associations from then on. The primary responsibility of Housing for Wales will be in relation to associations registered with it—that is, with associations based in Wales. That does not mean, however, that English-based

associations working in Wales must return to the other side of the border. Their contribution to meeting housing need in Wales has been greatly valued and, where appropriate, efforts will be made to encourage them to continue their operations in Wales.
New clause 27 replaces clause 54 as it appears in the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee. It revises the definition of "corporation" to include Housing for Wales. It also introduces a new schedule—listed as amendment No. 241—which brings together all the proposed amendments to the Housing Associations act 1985 needed to facilitate the establishment of Housing for Wales and Scottish Homes, which is being established by the Housing (Scotland) Bill 1988. More specifically, the schedule brings together the amendments to the 1985 Act that were previously set out in schedule 12 to this Bill, amendments to the act arising from the establishment of Housing for Wales, and amendments that reproduce the effect of amendments made by schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to allow for the creation of Scottish Homes.
The schedule also contains several provisions that make detailed amendments to strengthen the Housing Corporation's powers of supervision over registered housing associations. Such powers will, of course, also be available to Housing for Wales and Scottish Homes.
Under the new housing policies in the Bill, the supervisory role of the corporations will become even more important. In particular, potential private financiers will be looking for a reassurance that mechanisms are in place that will ensure standards of probity and allow prompt action against misdemeanours. The existing powers have served us quite well since 1974, but experience has brought a number of gaps and deficiencies to light.
The changes in this schedule are of a technical nature, drawing in some instances on precedents in other legislation. They relate primarily to the corporations' powers to conduct formal inquiries under section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 into the affairs of associations and act on the findings of those inquiries. Since 1974, the Housing Corporation has set up about 20 inquiries, either prompted by indications of malpractice or arising from serious financial or management difficulties. In some cases, the corporation has found that the restrictions on its powers have made it more difficult to establish the facts and have prevented it from acting quickly to put matters right.
Those amendments do not represent an accretion of power to the corporations. They merely close a number of gaps which the Government believe ought to be closed in order to ensure that the corporations are properly equipped to supervise that important and growing area of financial activity.
There are in addition a whole raft of consequential amendments arising from the Housing for Wales proposals. I will deal with them briefly.
Amendment 239 amends the long title of the Bill to make reference to the establishment of Housing for Wales.
Amendments 242 to 244 relate to the amendments to be made to schedule 12 in order to accommodate those which relate specifically to the establishment of Housing for Wales; while amendment 245 lists those consequential amendments which are required to various Acts to take account of the fact that Housing for Wales will in future be undertaking the functions in Wales which are presently undertaken by the Housing Corporation.


Amendment 246 deletes the specific reference to the Housing Corporation in clause 45, and replaces it with "corporation" as the generic term to be used in the legislation for both the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales.
Amendment 247 enables the two corporations to agree between themselves what proportion of grant should be deemed to have been paid to an association if a grant-aided property is transferred from an association registered with one corporation to an association registered with the other.
Amendment 248 deletes clause 52. That is a drafting amendment consequential on the provisions contained in the clause now appearing in paragraph 34 of the new schedule detailing amendments to the Housing Associations Act 1985.
Amendment 249 deletes clause 54. That allows the introduction of new clause 27, dealing with the interpretation of part II and amendments to the Housing Associations Act 1985.
Amendment 250 brings Housing for Wales within the scope of clause 98. That deals with disposals of property under tenants' choice. Once properties have been acquired under tenants' choice, their subsequent disposal will be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. The effect of this amendment is to place a obligation on the Secretary of State to consult Housing for Wales if he receives a proposal to dispose of land in Wales owned by a registered housing association.
Finally, amendments 251 to 252 make additions to the schedule of repeals consequent upon the terms of the various amendments I have already mentioned.
The amendments I have outlined are necessary to give Wales its own housing corporation to help tackle its own housing problems. I urge all hon. Members to agree to their addition to the Bill.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I say at the outset that I regard new clause 25 and the other schedules and amendments in the context of Welsh housing as a whole. A cursory glance at the Government's own financial statistics reveals the cut in resources and the neglect of the past nine years. Homelessness in Wales now sticks out like a sore thumb.
The important point is that the Housing Bill has been through its Standing Committee. Now, at this late stage, the Housing Corporation has had its Welsh arm lopped off, to be created into a new body called Housing for Wales. Why should that new development be sprung on the people of Wales so belatedly? Housing for Wales will essentially be a quango. There are hordes of them in Wales. They are thoroughly undemocratic, unrepresentative bodies, which are unduly open to governmental interference and pressure. What is more, there was no opportunity in Committee to discuss the proposal in depth.
It could be said that Scotland has had a fairer deal because the proposal for the Scottish body, to be called Scottish Homes, was included in the original draft of the Bill. Wales has again been neglected, largely because the Conservative party has such a negligible following there. Our English Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has considerable powers under the proposals. As the Under-Secretary of State has already

said, those powers extending to the appointment of staff, including the chief executive, are laid down in statute. Housing for Wales will have far fewer staff than its English equivalent. The Under-Secretary of State told us that it will be called Tai Cymru. However, I tend to think of it as "Walker's poodle".
The predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Wales had quite a long run at the Welsh Office—eight years. He regularly and systematically stuffed bodies throughout Wales with Conservative placemen who are unrepresentative of the people of Wales. Lord Crickhowell has now departed to a new and highly remunerative life in quango-land. Perhaps the belated nature of new clause 25 is due to the sensational proposals which have been reported as being in the mind of the present Secretary of State. He is reported as speaking about getting rid of council housing in Wales. Apparently, he spoke about properties being sold to their sitting tenants for £1 a time. Those are the sort of gimmicks that we have come to expect from the right hon. Member for Worcester.
In fairness to the Under-Secretary of State, he touched on the issue of staff. The people who will be transferred from the Housing Corporation to Housing in Wales will be encouraged to stay in Wales. I fully appreciated that point, but we would like assurances that those transferred will receive the same pay and conditions as hitherto.
In conclusion, and bearing in mind the criticism that I have made, we broadly support the creation of this new body for Wales, but I repeat that we deeply resent the way in which it has been introduced.

Mr. Wigley: I should like to extend a welcome to this initiative of Tai Cymru. Although many people would have liked greater discussion as the ideas were being developed, that is not a reason for being against the ideas when they do arise. That initiative is taken against a background of pretty appalling housing in Wales. There are housing problems in the old industrial valleys of south Wales, in the slate quarrying towns of north Wales and also in many rural areas. In the Dwyfor area in my constituency, the worst figures were revealed in the recent housing condition survey published by the Welsh Office. The relevance of housing associations and therefore the relevance of Tai Cymru arises in terms of the difficulties facing local people in securing adequate housing for their needs.
9.45 pm
The problems are different in many areas in Wales. I can speak from experience of my constituency where more and more local people find it almost impossible to buy houses because of the pressure of people moving into the area who can pay enormous sums for houses. More and more people understandably want to leave the south-east of England to go to the beautiful country in Gwynedd. They can sell a house down here for £200,000 or £250,000 and buy a house in my area for £50,000 or £60,000. They can then bank about £200,000 and live off the difference. Down here, £50,000 or £60,000 may be cheap for a house, but that is a large sum in areas like mine, where salaries of £5,000 or £6,000 a year may be the norm and where the mortgage capacity might be £20,000 to £25,000. In other words, people find that they cannot compete in the open market to buy houses.
In recent weeks, many constituents have told me that their children cannot afford a house when they get


married. That runs side by side with the fact that the rented housing stock has been sold off. Very few new rented units have been built, so waiting lists for houses in towns like Pwllheli in my constituency have increased substantially. I have received complaints from people in Pwllheli that it is very difficult to obtain rented accommodation, even though this winter the total male unemployment level in Pwllheli was 24·7 per cent. That was one of the worst levels in Wales. If people cannot afford to compete to buy houses and if there is no rented housing available, we will build up an enormous problem. The Government must be aware of that problem and the magnitude of what it could lead to in future.
The relevance of housing associations is considerable. If they have the resources—I emphasise that, because the amount of resources available to Tai Cymru is critical—they may be able to move into the private housing sector to buy up some houses that need to be renovated and repaired, use public sector resources for that purpose and therefore let those properties optimistically at a rent that people can afford. Housing associations have warned of the dangers from the present legislation. Rent levels might be so high as to be out of the reach of ordinary people.
The average income of people living in housing association houses in Cymdeithas Tai Eryri, a housing association in my constituency, has been calculated at under £60 a week. That is the income level per household. If that level has to finance a rent which must attract capital from the private sector, there could be considerable problems.
One would not expect rent to be more than 25 per cent. of total income. That suggests a rent capability in many housing association houses of about £15 a week. However, we know that, if housing associations have to go to the private sector for part of their capital, the pressure will be for higher rents.
Housing associations in Wales have an opportunity, to make a considerable impact on the problems of homelessness and poor housing. However, that can be achieved only if housing associations have adequate resources to buy in the housing stock they need and to repair it, and if they can do that job with public funds in a way that enables them to charge a rent that their tenants looking for housing can pay. Those are the challenges facing those who are to be involved in Tai Cymru.
If they are afforded sufficient resources and are allowed enough flexibility to get on with the job, those people can make a considerable contribution. In no way do I wish to belittle the part played by housing associations. Some of them are first-class, not only in rural areas but also in dealing with the disabled and the elderly. There are a number of Welsh housing associations doing excellent work. However, they will have to work within the confines of both the Bill and the finances which the Government make available.
I acknowledge the problems to which the hon. Member for Newport East (Mr. Hughes) referred, when he spoke of establishing another quango. It will be another quango, and that will create problems—but until we have an elected democracy in Wales, I suspect that we shall have to live with quango Wales. It has become a feature of our lives. Meanwhile, the question is whether the new body can do some reasonable work. I believe that it provides an opportunity, and when the Under-Secretary of State winds up I should like to hear from him more commitment in terms of the resources which are to be made available, to

ensure that the housing associations looking to Tai Cymru for a lead will be able to respond in a way that is meaningful, in meeting the needs of the people they serve. If the associations can do that, it will be a tremendous opportunity. If they cannot, it will be merely window dressing.

Mr. Alun Michael: This is a nominal attempt to create a Welsh body, which is obviously essential, but what will it do to improve the Welsh housing situation? It will be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, and he will continue to decide matters and not the new body, given the stranglehold of nomination and controls he will have over it.
Ministers have had to be reminded by their own Back Benchers that small housing associations must be able to do their job, but what are the Government trying to do with this new body and with other amendments before the House? Will they place unrealistic expectations on housing associations through the new body in Wales, so as to cover up the Government's lack of a real housing policy? The Minister spoke of the new body having roots in Wales, but it will be dominated to the point of dictatorship by a Secretary of State whose roots are not based in Wales.
Housing associations which are small and community based, and which are sensitive to specific community or special needs, can do a tremendous job. I know of many such examples in Cardiff. However, is the new body meant to preside over the replacement of public sector housing run by councils until now? If that is the intention, the new body cannot do that job. I and many of my hon. Friends would not pretend that public sector management of council houses has been perfect over the years, but neither has it been as bad as Conservative Members seem to believe. I served on the local housing authority for 15 years and saw the situation improve over a period.
The real hurt has been the lack of Government resources since 1979, giving rise to unacceptable distortions, family pressures and homelessness. What will the creation of Housing for Wales do for housing in Wales? The intentions of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government are unclear. There is in the Bill a black hole which cannot be disguised by amendments such as this. What will the Government do to support housing associations and to provide sufficient housing to meet the needs of the Welsh people?
There is an English document relating to the transfer of housing from the council sector. We are told that there will be a significantly different document for Wales. That is just as well, because the English document is appalling, based on a sectarian and narrow view. Where and when will the announcement about the policy for Wales be made? That will surely provide the meat for a great deal of the activity to be supervised by the new body.
The Government's intentions are unclear. For the Minister to refer to the technicalities of the amendments without explaining what the Secretary of State will do through this body—how he will enable housing associations to do a real job for Wales—is entirely inadequate. The Minister has not made a case for the body; he has merely said that it would be advantageous to have such a body for Wales. We all agree with that, but where is the real direction and policy for it and for housing associations in Wales? We have heard nothing of that.

Mr. Morgan: I have two major criticisms to put to the Minister in the brief time that remains. One relates to my experience as the only Welsh Opposition Member on the Standing Committee. I feel intense resentment, as will every member of the housing profession in Wales. The equivalent body for Scotland, Scottish Homes, was introduced at the proper time so that the legislation could be gone through line by line and proper consultation could take place with the local authorities, the Institute of Housing and the National Federation of Housing Associations about the powers and resources that it would be given. However, the Government are willing to try to get away with things in Wales. They consider Wales to be an afterthought.
If the Minister is honest, he will have to admit that the Government would not have tried this with Scotland. Such "afterthought" treatment produces intense anger among tenants and housing professionals in Wales—and, above all, among Opposition Members who, having submitted their names for membership of the Standing Committee, find that key items of legislation for Wales are left out until the Report stage.
We are not willing to put up with that. The amendments contain 12 pages of detailed verbiage on the setting up of Housing for Wales, but there is no chance for proper line-by-line examination in Committee, although that is what a Committee stage is for. That is appalling treatment of the Principality. Rather than the lame excuses that the Minister of State has given so far, we need proper treatment of Welsh legislation in Committee. We shall not stand for this again. I put that on record as a member of a Committee that considered a very long Bill.
I also object to the way in which the Minister has introduced the content of the Bill. He has said—with the Welsh Office's now familiar line in hubris—"We are setting up a new housing corporation to deal with Wales's housing needs." But there has been no word of how the corporation will match those special needs. Everyone who lives in Wales knows what they are. We know that Welsh housing tends on average to be much older than housing in England, because of the absence of any development in Wales between the wars. We also know that the social characteristics of Wales have made it the United Kingdom region which depends most on traditional heavy industries and that it tends to have a higher proportion of housing without the basic amenities. Moreover, incomes are insufficient for householders to carry out improvements of their own accord in the free market way possible in other parts of the United Kingdom. Wales depends much more on the public sector for the finance needed to bring Welsh housing up to standard.
There are many other problems. For instance, Wales has heavy rainfall and high winds, and hilly slopes cause damp to penetrate. Are the Government telling us that the resources available to Housing for Wales—or Tai Cymru, to use its short title—will be adequate? If so, will the Minister tell us what kind of problems he is talking about, rather than merely say that the body will deal with Wales's housing needs? Which needs is he talking about and how will it deal with them? So far he has given us shrinkage masquerading as growth. The funds available to Housing for Wales and the Housing Corporation for England, will be 10 per cent. less than those currently available to the Housing Corporation for England and Wales.
In his grand introduction the Minister told us that Housing for Wales will do the job. We strongly resent the

implication that Housing for Wales will be capable of handling the growing housing needs of Wales. Much of the housing in Wales was built about 100 years ago and it is beginning to crumble. There was a massive expansion of housing between 1870 and 1914, from Cardiff to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It will land us with appalling problems over the next 20 to 30 years.
I welcome the fact that we have a new Secretary of State for Wales. He says that he will not choose the members of the quango from the Abergavenny triangle, which the previous Secretary of State for Wales tended to do. He believed that the members of all quangos should belong to the same cocktail party set so that the lines of communication would be short; they would then be able to communicate easily with each other. There will be different faces on the quango, but it will still be a quango.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Morgan: If the words Tai Cymru are to mean anything, the body must expand. It must be capable of handling the massive housing needs of Wales. If not, it will be given the title of Ty Bach Cymru because it will be unable to carry out the job.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) is far away on Welsh Grand Committee business.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Where is he?

Mr. Hughes: He is with his colleagues in the far east. My hon. friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said that when he served on the Welsh Grand Committee he never went further than Aberystwyth, so something has obviously changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor referred in Committee, as did other Opposition Members, to the need for the provision of an independent housing organisation for Wales. We on these Benches welcome the creation of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales. I do so as an expatriate Welshman by name, by blood and by upbringing.
We now have a shell and a structure, but it will not meet the substantial housing needs of rural Wales unless it is provided with sufficient finance to do the job. Those who seek homes in Wales, particularly those who depend on housing associations when they begin married life, need homes at rents that they can afford to pay. That need is increasing in the disadvantaged rural areas, particularly in the north and the west of the Principality.
I hope that the precedent of Scottish Homes and Housing for Wales will be followed in England by devolution to the regions. The Housing Corporation should cease to be an ever-growing central quango. Devolution should lead to management being near to the services and to the people. I welcome the creation of Housing for Wales, and I hope that it means that the management of housing throughout England will soon be devolved. The Government must put their money where their words are, behind Housing for Wales. They must not allow it to become a token gesture towards alleviating the substantial housing crisis in the Principality.

Mr. Grist: It is a pity that the official Opposition so typically mean-minded and ungenerous about a proposal that has been welcomed by the local councils, the building industry, the building societies, the Housing Corporation and the housing associations. It is a pity that they cannot welcome bringing home to Wales the control over housing that at present is controlled by a quango in London. They complain about it being a quango. It is a quango now. I do not understand their approach.
The approach of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was particularly pernicious. He complained that we had not given enough time to the Opposition, but we certainly gave enough time to the people of Wales, and to those who are most closely involved with housing in Wales to make their opinions known. We provided sufficient time for constituents to contact their Member of Parliament and tell them what they thought, if they had any fears about the proposal. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that it received the wholehearted support of the vast majority of the people of Wales. I am sorry that it has not had the support of those who sit on the Opposition Benches.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

TRANSFER TO HOUSING FOR WALES OF REGULATION ETC. OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS BASED IN WALES

`(1) Every registered housing association which, immediately before the appointed day,

(a) is a society registered under the 1965 Act and has its registered office for the purposes of that Act in Wales, or
(b) is a registered charity and has its address for the purposes of registration by the Charity Commissioners in Wales,
shall on the appointed day cease to be registered in the register maintained by the Housing Corporation under section 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 and, by virtue of this subsection, he deemed to be registered in the register maintained by Housing for Wales under that section.

(2) Not later than one month before the appointed day, the Secretary of State shall notify every registered housing association which appears to him to be one which on that day will be deemed to be registered as mentioned in subsection (1) above of that fact and of the effect of that subsection.

(3) As soon as may be after the appointed day, Housing for Wales shall give notice of any registration effected by virtue of subsection (I) above,—

(a) if the housing association is a registered charity, to the Charity Commissioners; and
(b) if the housing association is a society registered under the 1965 Act, to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

(4) All rights, liabilities and obligations to which, immediately before the appointed day, the Housing Corporation was entitled or subject in relation to—

(a) any registered housing association to which subsection (1) above applies, and
(b) land in Wales held by an unregistered housing association,
shall on that day become rights, liabilities and obligations of Housing for Wales.

(5) Any question whether any rights, liabilities or obligations have become rights, liabilities or obligations of Housing for Wales by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

(6) In this section—
the 1965 Act" means the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965: and
the appointed day" means the day appointed for the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

INTERPRETATION OF PART II AND AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985

`(1) In this Part of this Act—

(a) "the 1985 Act" means the Housing Associations Act 1985;
(b) "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation or, as the case may be, Housing for Wales; and
(c) subject to paragraph (b) above, "the Corporation" and other expressions used in this Part have the same meaning as in the 1985 Act.

(2) The 1985 Act shall have effect subject to the amendments in Schedule[Amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985] to this Act, being amendments—

(a) extending the supervisory powers conferred by Part I of the 1985 Act,
(b) making provision incidental to and consequential upon the establishment by this Part of this Act of Housing for Wales and the establishment by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 of Scottish Homes; and
(c) making provision incidental to and consequential upon other provisions of this Part of this Act and the provisions of Part IV of this Act.

(3) In Schedule[Amendments of Housing Association Act 1985] to this Act,—

(a) Part I contains amendments of Part I of the 1985 Act, including amendments which reproduce the effect of amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 with respect to Scottish Homes; and
(b) Parts II and III contain amendments of Parts II and III respectively of the 1985 Act.

(4) Without prejudice to the operation of Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 in relation to anything done before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, for the purpose of giving effect to the amendments in Part I of Schedule[Amendments of Housing Association, 4ct 1985] to this Act, the said Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the first and Second time, and added to the Bill.

`HOUSING FOR WALES Status

1.—(1) Housing for Wales is a body corporate and is in this Schedule referred to as "the Corporation".

(2) The Corporation is a public body for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916.

(3) The Corporation shall not be regarded—

(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown; or
(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; or
(c) as exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatsover, whether general or local;
and its property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

Membership

2.—(1) The members of the Corporation shall be—

(a) not less than six nor more than eight persons appointed by the Secretary of State; and
(b) the chief officer of the Corporation appointed under paragraph 7 below;
and the members appointed under paragraph (a) above are in this Schedule referred to as the "appointed members".

(2) Before appointing a person to be a member of the Corporation the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that he will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and the Secretary of State may require a person whom he proposes to appoint to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.

3.—(1) The appointed members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment, subject to the following provisions.

(2) A member may resign his membership by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State may remove a member from office if he is satisfied that—

(a) he has been adjudged bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors;
(b) he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness;
(c) he has been absent from meetings of the Corporation for a period longer than three consecutive months without the permission of the Corporation; or
(d) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member, or is unsuitable to continue as a member.

(4) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every appointed member that he has no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of his functions as a member; and he may require an appointed member to give him such information as he considers necessary for that purpose.

Chairman and Deputy Chairman

4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the appointed members to be Chairman and may appoint one to be Deputy Chairman; and the members so appointed shall hold and vacate those offices in accordance with the terms of their appointment, subject to the following provisions.

(2) The Chairman or Deputy Chairman may resign by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.

(3) If the Chairman or Deputy Chairman ceases to be a member of the Corporation, he also ceases to be Chairman or Deputy Chairman.

Remuneration and allowances

5.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and appointed members such remuneration as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

(2) The Corporation may pay them such reasonable allowances as may be so determined in respect of expenses properly incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

Pensions

6.—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine to pay in respect of a person's office as Chairman, Deputy Chairman or appointed member—

(a) such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of that person on his retirement or death as may be so determined; or
(b) such contributions or other payments towards provisions for such pension, allowance or gratuity as may be so determined.

(2) As soon as may be after the making of such a determination the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the amount payable in pursuance of the determination.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in the case of a member who has been admitted in pursuance of regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 to participate in the benefits of superannuation fund maintained by a local authority.

(4) In such a case the Secretary of State shall make any payments required to be made to the fund in respect of the member by the employing authority and may make such deductions from his remunerations as the employing authority might make in respect of his contributions to the fund.

Staff

7.—(1) There shall be a chief executive of the Corporation.

(2) After consultation with the Chairman or person designated to be chairman of the Corporation, the Secretary of State shall make the first appointment of the chief executive on such terms and conditions as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

(3) The Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may make subsequent appointments to the office of chief executive on such terms and conditions as the Corporation may, with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury, determine.

8.—(1) The Corporation may appoint, on such terms and conditions as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine, such other employees as it thinks fit.

(2) In respect of such of its employees as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine, the

Corporation shall make such arrangements for providing pensions, allowances or gratuities as it may determine; and such arrangements may include the establishment and administration, by the Corporation or otherwise, of one or more pension schemes.

(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of employees of the Corporation includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Corporation's employees who suffer loss of office or employment or loss of diminution of emoluments.

(4) The Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury may, by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make regulations providing for—

(a) the transfer to, and administration by, Housing for Wales of any superannuation fund maintained by the House Corporation in terms of the provisions of any scheme made under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972; and
(b) the modification, for the purposes of the regulations, of that section or any scheme thereunder.

(5) If an employee of the Corporation becomes a member of the Corporation and was by reference to his employment by the Corporation a participant in a pension scheme administered by it for the benefit of its employees—

(a) the Corporation may determine that his service as a member shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Corporation whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 6 above; but
(b) if the Corporation does so determine, any discretion as to the benefits payable to or in respect of him which the scheme confers on the Corporation shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State.

(6) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this paragraph to the approval of the Secretary of State is a reference to that approval given with the consent of the Treasury.

9.—(1) Not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, the Corporation shall make an offer of employment by it to each person employed immediately before that date by the Housing Corporation in connection with functions in Wales; and any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to be made under this paragraph shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

(2) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.

(3) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months commencing with the date on which it is made.

10.—(1) Where a person becomes an employee of the Corporation in consequence of an offer made under paragraph 9 above, then, for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, his period of employment with the Housing Corporation, shall count as a period of employment by the Corporation, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(2) Where an offer is made in pursuance of paragraph 9 above to any person employed as mentioned in that paragraph, none of the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to such a person shall apply to him; and where that person ceases to be so employed—

(a) on becoming a member of the staff of the Corporation in consequence of that paragraph, or
(b) having unreasonably refused the offer,
Part VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall not apply to him and he shall not be treated for the purposes of any scheme under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 or any other scheme as having been retired on redundancy.

(3) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (2) above, where a person has unreasonably refused an offer made to him in pursuance of paragraph 9 above, the Housing Corporation


shall not terminate that person's employment unless it has first had regard to the feasibility of employing him in a suitable alternative position with it.

(4) Where a person continues in employment in the Housing Corporation either—

(a) not having unreasonably refused an offer made to him in pursuance of this paragraph, or
(b) not having been placed in a suitable alternative position as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above, he shall be treated for all purposes as if the offer mentioned in paragraph 9 above had not been made.

11. —(1) Any dispute as to whether an offer of employment complies with sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 above shall be referred to and be determined by an industrial tribunal.

(2) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint referred to it under sub-paragraph (1) above unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or, in a case where the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months, within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, there shall be no appeal from the decision of an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.

(4) An appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal may be made only on a question of law arising from the decision of, or in proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under this paragraph.

Proceedings

12. —(1) The quorum of the Corporation and the arrangements relating to its meetings shall, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, be such as the Corporation may determine.

(2) The validity of proceedings of the Corporation is not affected by any defect in the appointment of any of its members.

13.—(1) Where a member of the Corporation is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Corporation—

(a) he shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Corporation, and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation; and
(b) he shall not take any part in any decision of the Corporation with respect to the contract.

(2) A general notice given by a member at a meeting of the Corporation to the effect that he is a member of a specified company or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which may be made with the company or firm is a sufficient disclosure of his interest for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to a contract made after the date of the notice.

(3) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Corporation in order to make any disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph provided he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is brought up and read at the meeting.

14.—(1) The fixing of the Corporation's seal may be authenticated by the signature of the Chairman or of any other person authorised for the purpose.

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Corporation shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be so executed unless the contrary is proved.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule

`AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985

PART I AMENDMENTS OF PART I WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING CORPORATION, HOUSING FOR WALES AND SCOTTISH HOMES

1. After section 2 there shall be inserted the following section—

''The Corporation

2A.—(1) In relation to a housing association which has its registered office for the purposes of the 1965 Act in Scotland. "the Corporation" means Scottish Homes.

(2) In relation to a housing association—


(a)which is a society registered under the 1965 Act and has its registered office for the purposes of that Act in Wales, or
(b) which is a registered charity and has its address for the purposes of registration by the Charity Commissioners in Wales,
"the Corporation" means Housing for Wales.

(3) In relation to any other housing association which is a society registered under the 1965 Act or a registered charity, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation.

(4) Subject to subsections (1) to (3), in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes or Housing for Wales and "the Corporations" means those three bodies."

2. Except as provided below, for the words "Housing Corporation", in each place where they occur in Part I, there shall be substituted "Corporation".

3.—(1) In section 3 (the register), in subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "the Housing Corporation" there shall be substituted "each of the Corporations"; and
(b) after the word "Corporation", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "by which it is maintained".

(2) After subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) In this Act "register", in relation to the Corporation, means the register maintained by the Corporation under this section.

(3) In subsection (2) of that section the words "of housing associations maintained under this section" shall be omitted.

4.—(1) In section 5 (registration) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall require the Corporations to establish the same criteria; and each of them may vary any criteria established by it under that subsection.

(2) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) Where at any time a body is, or was, on a register maintained under section 3, then, for all purposes other than rectification of that register, the body shall be conclusively presumed to be, or to have been, at that time a housing association eligible for registration in that register.

5. In section 6(4) (removal from register) for paragraphs (a) to (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) a grant under section 41 (housing association grants),
(b) a grant under section 54 (revenue deficit grants),
(c) any such payment or loan as is mentioned in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (grant-aided land),
(d) a grant under section 2(2)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988,
(e) a grant under section 45 of the Housing Act 1938 (housing association grants), or
(f) a grant under section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".

6. In section 7 (appeals against removal from the register), in subsection (1) for the words from "to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted,—

"(a) where it is a decision of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session; and
(b) in any other case, to the High Court".

7.—(1) In section 9 (control by Corporation of disposition of land by housing associations) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(1) Subject to section 10, the consent of the Corporation is required for any disposition of land by a registered housing association except where the Secretary of State has given his consent to the disposition, or dispositions of the same class or description, in accordance with section 98(3) of the Housing Act 1988 (disposal of property acquired from a public sector landlord under Part IV of that Act).
(1A) Subject to section 10, the consent of the relevant Corporation is required for any disposition—


of grant-aided land (as defined in Schedule 1) by an unregistered housing association; and for this purpose 'the relevant Corporation' means,—

(a) if the land is in England, the Housing Corporation;
(b) if the land is in Scotland, Scottish Homes, and
(c) if the land is in Wales, Housing for Wales.".

(2) In subsection (3) of that section—

(a) for the words "the consent of the Corporation", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted "consent"; and
(b) for the words "the consent of the Corporation", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted "that consent".

(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added—
(6) References in this section to consent are references,—

(a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to consent given by order under the seal of the Corporation; and
(b) in the case of Scottish Homes, to consent in writing.".

8.—(1) In section 10 (dispositions excepted from section 9), in subsection (1) for the words from "the Charity Commissioners", in the second place where they occur, onwards there shall be substituted "before making an order in such a case the Charity Commissioners shall consult,—

(a) in the case of dispositions of land in England, the Housing Corporation;
(b) in the case of dispositions of land in Scotland, Scottish Homes, and
(c) in the case of dispositions of land in Wales, Housing for Wales."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) a letting of land under an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy, or
(d) a letting of land in England or Wales under what would be an assured tenancy or an assured agricultural occupancy but for any of paragraphs 4 to 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, or
(e) a letting of land in Scotland under what would be an assured tenancy but for any of paragraphs 3 to 8 and 12 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.".

9. For section 15A (which was inserted by section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986) there shall be substituted the following section—

"Payments etc. in community-based housing associations in Scotland.

15A.—(1) In relation to a community-based housing association in Scotland the following are also permitted, notwithstanding section 15(1)—

(a) payments made by the association in respect of the purchase of a dwelling, or part of a dwelling, owned and occupied by a person described in subsection (2) who is not an employee of the association; but only if—

(i) such payments constitute expenditure in connection with housing projects undertaken for the purpose of improving or repairing dwellings, being expenditure in respect of which housing association grants may be made under section 41(1); and
(ii) the purchase price does not exceed such value as may be placed on the dwelling, or as the case may be part, by the district valuer;
(b) the granting of the tenancy of a dwelling, or part of a dwelling, to such a person; but only if the person—

(i) lives in the dwelling or in another dwelling owned by the association; or
(ii) has at any time within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the granting of

the tenancy lived in the dwelling (or such other dwelling) whether or not it belonged to the housing association when he lived there.

(2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1) are—

(a) a committee member or voluntary officer of the association; or
(b) a person who at any time in the twelve months preceding the payment (or as the case may be the granting of the tenancy) has been such a member or officer; or
(c) a close relative of a person described in paragraph (a), or (b).

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a housing association is "community-based" if—

(a) prior to the specified date, it was designated as such by the Housing Corporation; or
(b) on or after that date, it is designated as such by Scottish Homes;
and, in this subsection, "specified date" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

(4) Scottish Homes—

(a) shall make a designation under subsection (3) only if it considers that the activities of the housing association relate wholly or mainly to the improvement of dwellings, or the management of improved dwellings, within a particular community (whether or not identified by reference to a geographical area entirely within any one administrative area); and
(b) may revoke such a designation (including a designation made by the Housing Corporation under subsection (3) above as originally enacted) if it considers, after giving the association an opportunity to make representations to it as regards such revocation, that the association's activities have ceased so to relate."

10. In section 16 (general power to remove committee member), in subsection (4) for the words from "order to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted "order,—

(a) if it is an order of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to the High Court, and
(b) if it is an order of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session."

11. In section 17 (power to appoint new committee members) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "and the power conferred by paragraph (c) may be exercised notwithstanding that it will cause the maximum number of committee members permissible under the association's constitution to be exceeded".

12.—(1) In section 18 (exercise of powers in relation to registered charities), in subsection (1) immediately before the entry relating to section 41 of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following entries—
section 45 of the Housing Act 1988 (housing association grants).
section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".

(2) In subsection (3) of that section (appointment by Corporation of trustees of associations which are registered charities: appointments not to exceed maximum number of trustees) the words from "and the Corporation" onwards shall be omitted.

13. In section 19 (change of rules under the 1965 Act), in subsection (3) for the words "given by order under the seal of the Corporation" there shall be substituted "given,—

(a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, by order under the seal of the Corporation; and
(b) in the case of Scottish Homes, by notice in writing."

14. In section 21 (amalgamation and dissolution under the 1965 Act), in subsection (6) for the words from "are to an order" onwards there shall be substituted "are,—

(a) in the case of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to consent given by order under the seal of the Corporation; and
(b) in the case of Scottish Homes, to consent given in writing."

15. In section 22 (Corporation's power to petition for winding up), in subsection (1) after the word "applies" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be added "or


(b) on the ground that the association is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 518 of the Companies Act 1985.".

16.—(1) In section 24 (general requirements as to accounts and audit), in subsection (2) after the word "association" there shall be inserted "which is a registered charity".

(2) In subsection (5) of that section after the words "different areas" there shall be inserted "or for different descriptions of housing associations or housing activities".

(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), descriptions may be framed by reference to any matters whatever, including in particular, in the case of housing activities, the manner in which they are financed.

17. In section 27 (responsibility for securing compliance with accounting requirements), in subsection (2) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "or
(d) section 50(9) of the Housing Act 1988 is not complied with".

18.—(1) In section 28 (Corporation may appoint a person to inquire into the affairs of a registered housing association), in subsection (1) for the words "the Corporation's staff" there shall be substituted "staff of any of the Corporations" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added "and, if the appointed person considers it necessary for the purposes of the inquiry, he may also inquire into the business of any other body which, at a time which the appointed person considers material, is or was a subsidiary or associate of the association concerned".

(2) In subsection (2) of that section at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added "or

(c) any person who is, or has been, an officer, agent or member of a subsidiary or associate of the association; or
(d) any other person whom the appointed person has reason to believe is or may be in possession of information of relevance to the inquiry".

(3) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), any books, accounts or other documents are produced to the appointed person, he may take copies of or make extracts from them.
(3B) The appointed person may, if he thinks fit during the course of the inquiry, make one or more interim reports to the Corporation on such matters as appear to him to be appropriate.

(4) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
(6) In this section, in relation to a housing association, "subsidiary" means a company with respect to which one of the following conditions is fulfilled,—

(a) the association is a member of the company and controls the composition of the board of directors; or
(b) the association holds more than half in nominal value of the company's equity share capital; or
(c) the company is a subsidiary, within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985 or the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968, of another company which, by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), is itself a subsidiary of the housing association;
and, in the case of a housing association which is a body of trustees, the reference in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) to the association is a reference to the trustees acting as such and any reference in subsection (7) to the association shall be construed accordingly.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(a), the composition of a company's board of directors shall be deemed to be controlled by a housing association if, but only if, the association, by the exercise of some power exercisable by the association without the consent or concurrence of any other person, can appoint or remove the holders of all or a majority of the

directorships.

(8) In this section, in relation to a housing association "associate" means—

(a) any body of which the association is a subsidiary; and
(b) any other subsidiary of such a body. and in this subsection "subsidiary" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 or the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 or, in the case of a body which is itself a housing association,

19. In section 29(1) (extraordinary audit) after the words "section 28" there shall be inserted "into the affairs of a registered housing association".

20.—(1) In section 30 (general powers of Corporation as a result of an inquiry or audit) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) If at any time the appointed person makes an interim report under section 28(3B) and, as a result of that interim report, the Corporation is satisfied that there has been misconduct or mismanagement as mentioned in subsection (1),—

(a) the Corporation may at that time exercise any of the powers conferred by paragraphs (b) to (d) of that subsection; and
(b) in relation to the exercise at that time of the power conferred by subsection (1)(b), the reference therein to a period of six months shall be construed as a reference to a period beginning at that time and ending six months after the date of the report under section 28(4)."

(2) In subsection (4) of that section (appeal against certain orders) for the words from "order to the High Court" onwards there shall be substituted "order,—

(a) if it is an order of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, to the High Court; and
(b) if it is an order of Scottish Homes, to the Court of Session."

21.—(1) In section 31 (exercise of powers in relation to registered charities), in subsection (1) immediately before the entry relating to section 41 of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following entries—
section 45 of the Housing Act 1988 (housing association grants), section 46 of that Act (revenue deficit grants)".

(2) At the end of subsection (2)(b) of that section there shall be added the words "and such other activities (if any) of the association as are incidental to or connected with its housing activities".

22. In section 33 (recognition of central association), in subsection (1) after "housing associations" there shall be inserted "in Great Britain or in any part of Great Britain".

23. In section 39 (minor definitions) before the definition of "mental disorder" there shall be inserted—
"assured tenancy" has, in England and Wales, the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1988 and, in Scotland, the same meaning as in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;
assured agricultural occupancy" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1988.

24. In section 40 (index of defined expressions in Part I)—

(a) after the entry relating to "appropriate registrar" there shall be inserted—
"assured agricultural occupancy"…section 39 "assured tenancy" … … … section 39";

(b) after the entry relating to "the Companies Act" there shall be inserted—
"the Corporation"… … section 2A"; and

(c) in the entry beginning "register", in the second column for "3(2)" there shall be substituted "3"."

PART II

AMENDMENTS OF PART II WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING CORPORATION AND HOUSING FOR WALES

25.—(1) In section 63 (building society advances) for the words "the Housing Corporation", in each place where they occur in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be substituted "one of the Corporations" and in subsection (1)(b) for the words "the Corporation" there shall be substituted "that one of the Corporations which is concerned".

(2) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) In this section "the Corporations" means the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales".

26.—(1) In section 69 (power to vary or terminate certain agreements) at the end of subsection (1)(a) there shall be added "(including such an agreement under which rights and obligations have been transferred to Housing for Wales)".

2. After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) In the case of an agreement under which rights and obligations have been transferred to Housing for Wales, the reference to a party to the agreement includes a reference to Housing for Wales.".

27. In section 69A (land subject to housing management agreement) for the words "housing association grant, revenue deficit grant or hostel deficit grant" there shall be substituted "grant under section 45 (housing association grant) or section 46 (revenue deficit grant) of the Housing Act 1988".

28.—(1) In Part I of Schedule 5 (residual subsidies)—

(a) in paragraph 5(3) the words "at such times and in such places as the Treasury may direct" and "with the approval of the Treasury" shall be omitted; and
(b) at the end of paragraph 6(2)(b) there shall be added "or Housing for Wales".

(2) In Part II of that Schedule, in paragraph 5(3) the words "at such times and in such places as the Treasury may direct" and "with the approval of the Treasury" shall be omitted.

PART III

AMENDMENTS OF PART III WITH RESPECT TO ME HOUSING CORPORATION AND HOUSING FOR WALES

29.—(1) In section 74 (constitution of Housing Corporation etc.), in subsection (1) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted "and Housing for Wales, each of".

(2) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "the Corporation" there shall be substituted "the Housing Corporation".

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3) In this Part "registered housing association" in relation to the Corporation, means a housing association registered in the register maintained by the Corporation.

(4) In this Part,—

(a) in relation to land in Wales held by an unregistered housing association "the Corporation" means Housing for Wales; and
(b) in relation to land outside Wales held by such an association, "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation."

30. In section 75 (general functions), in subsection (1)(c) for the words "a register of housing associations" there shall be substituted "the register of housing associations referred to in section 3".

31. At the end of section 77 (advisory service) there shall be added the following subsection—
(3) The powers conferred on the Corporation by subsection (1) and (2) may be exercised by the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales acting jointly".

32.—(1) In section 83 (power to guarantee loans), in subsection (3) (maximum amount outstanding in respect of loans etc.) for the words "the Corporation", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "the Housing Corporation".

(2) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) The aggregate amount outstanding in respect of—

(a) loans for which Housing for Wales has given a guarantee under this section, and
(b) payments made by Housing for Wales in meeting an obligation arising by virtue of such a guarantee and not repaid to Housing for Wales,
shall not exceed £30 million or such greater sum not exceeding £50 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the approval of the Treasury".

(3) In subsection (4) of that section (procedure for orders of Secretary of State) after the words "subsection (3)" there shall be inserted "or subsection (3A)".

33.—(1) In section 93 (limit on borrowing), in subsection (2) for the words from "shall not exceed" onwards there shall be substituted "shall not exceed the limit appropriate to the Corporation under subsection (2A)".

(2) At the end of subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) The limit referred to in subsection (2) is,—
(a) in the case of the Housing Corporation, £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £3,000 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury; and
(b) in the case of Housing for Wales, £250 million or such greater sum not exceeding £300 million as the Secretary of State may specify by order made with the consent of the Treasury".

(3) In subsections (3) to (5) of that section for "(2)", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "(2A)".

34. In section 106(1) (minor definitions: general) for the definition of "housing activities" there shall be substituted the following—
"housing activities", in relation to a registered housing association, means all its activities in pursuance of such of its purposes, objects or powers as are of a description mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or subsections (2) to (4) of section 4.""—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 45

HOUSING ASSOCIATION GRANTS

Amendment made: No. 246, in page 33, line 41, leave out 'Housing Corporation ("the Corporation")' and insert `Corporation'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 33 line 43. at end insert —
`Where the expenditure incurred has been financed by a loan from a local authority, the grant shall be paid to the local authority'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 33—Housing association grant on schemes sponsored by local authorities—
'.—(1) Housing association grants shall be available under section 45 of this Act for housing associations schemes funded by local housing authorities within the meaning of section I of the Housing Act 1985.
(2) The terms under which housing associations grants are available for such schemes shall, taken as a whole, be not less favourable to housing associations than the terms in respect of schemes directly funded by the Housing Corporation.
(3) The Housing Corporation shall consult on grants for housing association schemes funded by local housing authorities with such associations as appear to them to be representative of such housing authorities and housing associations as regards:

(a) the amount of grant available;
(b) the procedures to be followed in relation to applications for grant;
(c) the circumstances in which grant is payable;
(d) the method for calculation and any limitations on grant;
(e) the manner in which and time or times at which grant is paid.'

Mr. Howarth: The Government have tried to constrain or prevent local authorities from funding housing associations directly. It seems rather strange that the Government should try to carve out a new role for local authorities as a strategic authority—they do not envisage


local authorities being landlords on any great scale—while removing their ability to fund other bodies such as housing associations.
Many of us who have been deeply involved in housing for many years—as I have been, on Merseyside—have witnessed the good results of local authority funding of housing association schemes for the elderly and general family need, for example.
There is a more alarming point. I have here a letter from the chief officer, programme and operational support division, in the Housing Corporation, who was asked to comment on whether the Housing Corporation would be able to fund housing co-operatives. Housing co-operatives involve the same funding mechanism as housing associations. In reply to the National Federation of Housing Co-Operatives, he concluded in his letter dated 9 May 1988:
In these circumstances, given the potential magnitude of calls upon our ADP resources, we have concluded that we have no option but to draw the line. Our present view is that we will not use ADP funds to enable council tenants to opt out of council housing through the formation of housing co-operatives or indeed through other housing association mechanisms.
In other words, the Housing Corporation's ability to fund housing associations to help council tenants, who often live in dreadful conditions or in bedroom spaces which are in short supply, will be constrained, so quite where the new initiatives in council estates and inner cities will come from, I am at a loss to understand.

Mr. David Alton: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, on Merseyside, there are some good examples—especially in the city of Liverpool—of people grouping together to form a housing co-operative with help from housing associations? Without the funding that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which can act as a catalyst and get them off the ground, there is no way in which people will be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It is not good enough to express the sentiment—the cash is needed as well.

Mr. Howarth: That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will remember the tenant rehousing programme in the city of Liverpool, which was a good example of what he describes. The local authority funded people to establish a co-operative scheme. That will not be possible under the new arrangements. The Housing Corporation has confirmed that it will not substitute those resources. I find that staggering and worrying. The Government support such initiatives, but they are removing all the funding mechanisms which go through the Housing Corporation or local authorities as a result of which those initiatives can come to fruition. Quite frankly, I am not quite sure that the Government realise the difficulties that they will create on the outer estates and in the inner cities. Even at this late hour, I hope that they will reconsider their position and produce a positive response to genuine fears.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman raised points about resources which are at the heart of a great deal of the measure. We are continuing our debate in Committee, which was a good debate, about what mechanism should be used and whether our original suggestion that the disadvantages of double scrutiny in Housing Association grant funding between the corporation and local

authorities were so severe that we should cut through that by centralising it in the Housing Corporation. That had administrative gains, but there was the loss of pluralism in not having local authorities leading schemes. I well understand that everyone's capacity to do that depends on the resources available to them.
We are discussing the mechanism. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause as drafted enables local authorities to continue leading HAG-funded schemes and for the corporation to give the grants. It is our intention, as I announced on 23 May, that that should continue. We shall try to deal with the problem of double scrutiny that has irritated everyone, probably including the hon. Gentleman in the past when he was involved in these matters, by putting all that in the hands of the corporation.

Mr. George Howarth: Just to get the matter absolutely clear, is the Minister of State saying that the new clause as drafted will mean that local authorities can directly fund housing associations or co-operatives to house their tenants or anyone else in housing need?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Bill as drafted enables the Housing Corporation to fund housing association schemes which have been established by local authorities, as in the past. It makes no change to those arrangements except that the corporation alone will be responsible for vetting the scheme for grant which will help to speed things up. That will be done by the administrative arrangements. The local authority alone should be responsible for deciding whether public resources should be committed to it. Of course, they will be subject to normal capital controls, and there is also the separate argument about resources.
The Bill enables them to say, "We want to fund this housing association scheme to our housing investment programme allocation," as many boroughs in London, most famously the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, have done for many years, and, "We shall have only single letting." I take it that my hon. Friend's new clause and the Opposition amendment were really probing amendments to make sure that that will continue to be possible. I can repeat the assurances which I gave in Committee and there is no question about them.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister answer another of my points? As recently as 9 May, the Housing Corporation said that it will not use ADP funds to support schemes that essentially rehouse local authority tenants. Therefore, in many cases the Minister's assurances will not apply. People in housing that is inadequate in one way or another will not be able to get housing association or housing co-operative schemes funded.

Mr. Waldegrave: The schemes will be for the local authority to decide, as at present, and the Housing Corporation will pay HAG funding as in the past. The only change is that the vetting and scrutiny will be done only by the Housing Corporation.
New clause 33 sought to give local authority associations the same right to be consulted on the HAG rules for local authority sponsored schemes as the housing association movement, which does not seem to be right. it should be for the local authority to lead on the schemes and for the housing association movement and for the Housing Corporation to decide on the details of the funding arrangements that finance the schemes. I hope that my assurances which meet the points that were raised


in Committee and the points raised by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) tonight will enable my hon. Friend and the Opposition to withdraw the amendments.

Mr. Alton: Before we move on, I should like to comment on one or two of the points made by the Minister. From my experience in Liverpool, where I was a housing committee chairman for some time and where we initiated a number of housing co-operative ventures, I am disappointed that the Government are not putting as much emphasis on the autonomous status of housing co-operatives as they are on housing associations. I agree with what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said about the general role of housing associations and how they can act as useful catalysts. I am an enthusiast for housing associations, but I would prefer to place the emphasis and the money on groups of tenants who would like to take control for themselves through the establishment of housing co-operatives.
I am disappointed that we are not creating mechanisms that give tenants a chance to take over for themselves and to be able to establish and manage their housing co-operatives. We ought not to be placing obstacles in their way. I should like to see more resources allocated through the housing investment programme direct to council tenants. I do not believe that the Government have thought the matter through sufficiently.
There is the problem of recalcitrant local authorities which do not agree with the Government's position. My authority was an example of that. For two years, it adamantly refused to allow groups of tenants who wanted to establish housing co-operatives to do so. I introduced a ten-minute Bill to give tenants the right to establish co-operatives in the communities in which they live. Only last week the Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, and the Archbishop, Derek Worlock, presided over the opening of the Eldonians, a housing co-operative in the heart of Liverpool. It is on a site that the tenants had to fight tooth and nail to acquire. They had to fight against all the odds, including the local authority, which tried to prevent them from obtaining the site. Now, the old Tate and Lyle site at Love lane in Liverpool is an exciting new housing co-operative. I pay tribute to the Government for their part in helping the tenants achieve that.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to forestall me. I had an exciting visit to the Eldonians the other day. Ironically, I was pressed strongly —we were able to accede to the request—to have the land transferred into the development corporation areas because it was felt that there would be much more co-operation. I hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Alton: I do not deny that there will probably be greater co-operation. However, there is no local accountability through the Housing Corporation. The problem is that the tenants were not able, within their local authority, to establish a housing co-operative and obtain direct funding. It is not a question of coming under a development corporation or a local authority. The tenants wanted to be able to take control and establish their housing co-operative.
That is a good illustration of all the obstacles that can be placed in the way of tenants. I pay tribute to the Merseyside improved housing association for providing advice and helping the tenants through the minefield that they had to negotiate. These tenants are a classic example of what can be achieved by unemployed people most of them were unemployed—living in a rundown tenement block in the heart of one of the worst inner-city areas in the country. They were able to take over, but how much better it would have been if the resources, power and control had been given to that self-help group early on. How much better it would have been if the bureaucracy, red tape and obstacles placed in their path by the local authority and through the various planning consents they had to acquire could have been removed. A golden opportunity that could have been taken in the Bill has been lost.

Mr. George Howarth: The Bill seems to be moving from muddle to chaos. Our amendment seeks to mitigate that. Therefore, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 234.

Division No. 349]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen(Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Allen, Graham
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John(St Helens N)


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry(Falkirk E)


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret(Moray)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Fearn, Ronald


Beckett, Margaret
Fields, Terry(L'pool B G'n)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Blunkett, David
Fyfe, Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Boyes, Roland
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John(Norwich South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas(Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)
Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David(S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clay, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George(Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)


Cook, Frank(Stockton N)
Hughes, John(Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy(Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean(Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon(Southwark)


Crowther, Stan
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry(Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan(Ynys Môn)


Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H'I)
Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S W)


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dixon, Don
Lamond, James


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted






Leighton, Ron
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lestor, Joan(Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Richardson, Jo


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)
Robertson, George


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Bob
Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C.(Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David(Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Matthew(Truro)


Michael, Alun
Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)


Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliott
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Michael(Doncaster N)


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Dafydd


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Brien, William
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray(Ogmore)
Young, David(Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom(Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Banks, Robert(Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Simon(Swindon)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)
Davis, David(Boothterry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dykes, Hugh


Browne, John(Winchester)
Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fallon, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Farr, Sir John


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony





Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Franks, Cecil
Malins, Humfrey


Freeman, Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Gregory, Conal
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Patten, John(Oxford W)


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Irving, Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lee, John(Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McCrindle, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Twinn, Dr Ian






Waddington, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walker, Bill(T'side North)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Wheeler, John
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. —[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]:

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase which is attributable to provisions of the Act raising to £3,000 million the limit imposed by and by virtue of section 29(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 in the sums payable out of National Loan Fund under section 24 of the said Act of 1979;
(b) payment out of Consolidated Fund of any increase so attributable in the corresponding sums which may require to be paid by way of guarantee under section 25 of the said Act of 1979; and
(c) payment of any sums into the National Loans Fund

PETITION

Opencast Mining (Mastin Moor)

Mr. Harry Barnes: The petition is signed by Mr. and Mrs. J. Bowler of 7 Miller avenue, Mastin Moor, Chesterfield and by a further 694 of my constituents in Derbyshire, North-East who live in the Mastin Moor area. The petition has my full support. It says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the residents of Mastin Moor Derbyshire
Sheweth
That proposals to introduce opencast mining on the Pinnock Site would
Bring increased subsidence to the area resulting in further deterioration of your Petitioners' homes.
Result in a devaluation of your Petitioners' homes.
Be nuisance to your Petitioners by reason of the operation of plant and machinery 24 hours a day causing noise, dust and pollution.
Mean that the Countryside and many forms of wildlife will be destroyed and local walks will be lost for ever.
Cause an increase in heavy traffic thereby being a danger to pedestrians especially children and the elderly.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the development of the Pinnock Site.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the development of the Pinnock Site.

To lie upon the Table.

Council Estates (Security Patrols)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. James Hill: I begin by quoting the report of the chief constable of Hampshire for 1987, which contains some chilling figures. One paragraph states:
Public disorder on the streets of Southampton has manifested itself in serious wounding offences including four murders.
As there were only 14 murders—if I may say "only"—throughout the length and breadth of Hampshire, the House will appreciate the seriousness of the offences taking place because so many young people now carry knives. In Hampshire there were 95,267 crimes, a recorded increase of 2,726, with a detection rate of 32,618 or 34·4 per cent. —just one out of every three crimes.
I called this debate because I felt that if even a small proportion of the thought, time and money expended on the terrible national problem of football hooliganism were spent on the seemingly insoluble problem of estate hooliganism, that problem would swiftly be solved. At present, we are just sitting down and letting it happen.
Great concern has been shown about the problem. The Home Office has produced an excellent booklet, "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", which I hope will be the subject of mass distribution throughout the United Kingdom. Other elements in that concern include a one-day seminar in London on Tuesday 28 June on "Combating Vandalism to Public Services". The seminar is financed by TVS and British Telecom and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be speaking at it.
There is clearly a hiatus somewhere. We are all becoming aware of the problems, unfortunately, but more through watching football matches than through watching the vandalism on council estates. I believe, therefore, that it is time to go round the estates again. In 1978 I put forward a programme for security patrols on housing estates. These were intended not to take over the duties of the police but to supplement them and to convey information to the police between the hours of 4 pm and midnight each day.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and some chief constables are firmly convinced that neighbourhood watch schemes are a good thing. There are currently about 50,000 such schemes covering more than 3·5 million households and they seem to be doing a worthwhile job. I am worried, however, because this aspect is left entirely to the discretion of the chief constable concerned and I must tell the House with some regret that Southampton does not enjoy neighbourhood watch schemes of any importance.
Community policing is extremely worth while but, as every Member of Parliament knows, each year brings requests for further increases in establishment.I have here a plea from the Hampshire police authority for an increase of 47 in the establishment for next year. From year to year, I have been perfectly willing to support the police in lobbying the Home Secretary.
I am particularly concerned in that problem areas such as Lord's hill have not received any increase in police establishment. The chief constable of Hampshire and the Hampshire police authority are worried about manning

levels. They wish next year to take the full establishment to 3,175 men. Also, to enable experienced police officers to re-join the beat and be released from administrative tasks, they are continuing their programme of recruiting civilians. We need more civilians in police headquarters, and we need more security services provided by the private sector.
If neighbourhood watch schemes will not work on large council estates—due to harassment of committee members or, perhaps, because of the feeling about "grassing" to the police—we must think of the next move. The next move is to encourage civilians to take part in neighbourhood watch schemes, to observe, distribute leaflets, and to communicate with the police—to become almost a civilian arm of the police force. If neighbourhood watch schemes cannot be set up in certain neighbourhoods, it is perfectly logical for the relevant local authority to set up a similar watching patrol. When I suggested that alternative some years ago, there was a good deal of acceptance by those living on council estates.
Estate officers would have a terrible task. They would need to have a high profile, prevent vandalism and the incidence of graffiti and anti-social behaviour. They would have to try to prevent abuse of amenity areas, underpasses and play areas. They would have to establish links with tenants and their problems. They would have to identify problem areas and families for committee action as appropriate. They would have to be a liaison force with the police. If they found poor maintenance or vandalism—on some estates, whole brick walls have been pushed over —they would have to take the problems to the relevant part of the housing management and, of course, report repairs when needed. They would have a primary role.
I have often thought that it is quite wrong for local authorities of whatever colour and persuasion to build estates worth many millions of pounds and then to say, "That is it. Put the people in and let them get on with it. If they do not get on with each other, so what?" As we all know, even if one asks for an unneighbourly family in a row of houses to be moved because they do not get on well with their neighbours, it is almost impossible to remove the rotten apple from the barrel.
We have created vast concrete estates—I shall not call them jungles, as they are beautifully laid out, but many safety measures were not built into the architectural brief. We developed such estates throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Thank goodness many local authorities, including my own, stopped high-rise building in the 1960s. Of course, the great problem in moving a man, his wife and a couple of little babies to a new estate is that, 15 years later, we shall have an army of teenagers. Some of them may be the most upright citizens in the world, but many of them join gangs.
My supposition is that those gangs are a microcosm of the football hooligan group. If a person is to learn the basic arts of gang warfare, what better place than on a council estate—such as Lord's hill in Southampton—where the only opposition is one policeman? It is hard for my hon. Friends to believe, but there is only one policeman on a bicycle, who is the sole communicator with the police station almost two miles away. Of course, those gangs of youths, even if they are moved on because someone has phoned the police, re-form in a few minutes.
Those gangs harass the elderly by their presence, by the bricks and rubble that they throw at windows and by the disgusting materials that they push through people's letter


boxes; and, of course, the least word that is said by those elderly people against them is greeted with a complete conversation of four-letter words.
When helping the BBC and the ITV to make a programme on the estates so that they could see what was happening, there were many complaints but practically no one wanted to be identified. No one wanted to stand up and say, "Those hooligans are here every evening and I am not afraid of them." What they actually said was, "I will tell you everything, but I do not want my name and address to go forward." That is the first time that I have ever seen the British public afraid of the television camera. Normally, they gather around TV cameras like bees around honey. But the fear on the estate was radiated through to the television cameras. That is something that cannot be allowed to continue.
Of course, if there are young children of five, six and seven developing this trend, it is they who will eventually become the teenagers who are the muggers, the rapists or the murderers. We have to think long and hard whether we will allow the collective strength of those groups—unopposed by any real force—to destroy children's playgrounds, pull down massive fences, kick in doors, smash windows and push unspeakable objects through letter boxes.
I have great regard for the police, but even if the incidents are reported to the police, they can do little or nothing about most of them. Until a physical act takes place and the person can be identified—which is so difficult when dealing with a group—the police are helpless. That is why security patrols should come on to the council estates.
Hon. Members may ask who will pay for this. In the days when I first suggested those security patrols, the council tenants were willing to pay 4p, 5p or 6p a week for them. Now the picture has slightly changed. We have sold off a lot of the council houses and it would be a terrible problem collecting a levy from every person who would be safeguarded by those security patrols.
That may be one sector in law and order that the Home Secretary might wish to look at, with the idea of making it mandatory for local government to safeguard its own property—shops as well as flats and houses—but, most of all, its tenants. That can only be done by way of a subsidy. It would be a small sum and it could be taken out of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. Although it would be a small sum, it would go a long way towards assisting the police. I hope that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gives the Hampshire police authority 47 more established places next year he makes sure that most of them are in the black areas that I have described.
I should like to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply. I know that I have not given him warning of some of the points that I have raised, but as passionate Conservatives we must deal with the harassment that I have described. If that means spending a little money outside the police area, it would be well worth spending.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is well known to the people of Southampton for the

interest that he takes in such issues as this. I am advised that, for the three or four years that he was the distinguished chairman of the housing committee of Southampton city council, he took a special interest in trying to arrange the sorts of security and anti-vandal patrols on our great housing estates which he believed then and believes now—I have more than a shred of belief myself—could under certain circumstances, perhaps when all else has failed, have an effect.
I welcome very much the welcome that my hon. Friend gave to what the Home Office is trying to do on crime prevention and the tribute that he paid to those who composed the booklet, "Crime—Together We Can Crack It". My hon. Friend asked how many of those booklets have now been distributed around the country. I advise him that demand has almost outstripped supply. We have distributed about 1 million copies of the booklet and will shortly have to reprint a revised and updated version. It has had a warm welcome.
Many crimes in this country are eminently preventable —for example, one quarter of all domestic burglaries and perhaps one in five of all car crimes. People must and should, take more care of their property because one of the things that so contribute to the feeling of fear and uncertainty on our great housing estates is the fact that people read in the headlines that hundreds of thousands of crimes are being reported. However, many of those crimes are petty, and many are avoidable.
About 95 per cent. of all crime is not against the person, but against property. However, crimes against the person, such as my hon. Friend referred to in Southampton, are important, as were the remarks made in the chief constable's report about violent crime. I was extremely disturbed to learn from my hon. Friend the facts about the incidents, which I judge to be stabbings and woundings, which have caused so much trouble in the streets of his beautiful and prosperous city.
I advise people who go about armed with sharp-bladed instruments such as knives, stilettos, Stanley knives and other implements of wounding—and sometimes, alas, murder—that the Criminal Justice Bill, which returns to the Floor of the House on Thursday this week, introduces severe new penalties for those who are caught, not just using but even carrying sharp-bladed instruments in the streets without due reason. Over the years, the classic defence of the yob and the bully when he has been searched and found to have a knife on his or, more rarely her, person has been, "Oh, I use it for peeling oranges, guy, —or constable." That has been used time after time, but will no longer apply, and people will be severely treated for the offence.
In the Criminal Justice Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is bent on introducing for the first time the prosecution right of appeal through our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General against allegedly over-lenient sentences. That is something that people who go about armed, bent on causing trouble, in our great cities such as Southampton, should face up to.
There are severe new penalties in the Criminal Justice Bill which I hope will act as a deterrent. I hope that, in a year or two, the chief constable's report will not need to refer to such tragic events. So much depends on excellent policing and the work of those who police cities such as Southampton. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to


those who police our cities. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking forward very much to the TVS seminar to which my hon. Friend referred.
Law and order and crime are at the centre of public debate, and we must realise that. As I have said, so much is preventable. The effort that can be made, sometimes on very difficult housing estates is formidable where neighbourhood watch schemes have been started up and successfully implemented. When the Government came to power in 1979, there were no neighbourhood watch schemes. In 1982, the first such scheme was started, and now, in 1988, there are some 50,000. The number is growing fast; the momentum is unstoppable. I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I was sorry to hear that neighbourhood watch schemes in some parts of Southampton at least had not been progressing as fast or developing as well as my hon. Friend had hoped. However, perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend understood me very well. I have asked numerous questions to try to get the Home Secretary to ensure that the chief constable of Hampshire was happy to set up the neighbourhood watch schemes. He is more concerned with community policing. As we cannot set up neighbourhood watch schemes on the vast estates, we shall have to try another method.

Mr. Patten: Those are operational matters for the chief constable to decide. Although the police have the primary role to play in crime prevention, they need not necessarily have the major role to play in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes. In many parts of the country, the local community has taken the lead and demanded neighbourhood watch schemes in those areas. I have seen that on numerous visits around the country.
It is clear from recent published research—and by recent I mean within the past 14 days—that, on some of the most difficult housing estates in the country, concentrated neigbourhood watch schemes can produce radical reductions in crime. I do not think that neighbourhood watch works only in the leafy suburbs or in middle-class, well organised areas; it works extremely well in many areas where there are housing estates. The research to which I have referred deals with an estate in Rochdale. That estate suffered from difficulties similar to those experienced on the housing estate referred to by my hon. Friend. The estate in Rochdale housed 2,000 people, but in only seven months under an intensive neighbourhood watch scheme, domestic burglaries were reduced by 60 per cent. That depended a great deal on the commitment of local people and the police. It also depended on the commitment of all the people involved in running the estate.
That is important, and that is where my hon. Friend's experience showed as a distinguished ex-chairman of housing in Southampton. He is aware how complex and difficult the problem is and how good management is at the root of so much that can be done on our estates to provide better housing that is desperately needed and a better environment, a better neighbourhood and a safer community in which people can grow up.
The work being carried out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is very important. The Department of the Environment has assisted local authorities to try to manage estates better through the priority estates project, and a similar project is sponsored

by the Welsh Office. The priority estates project has achieved remarkable improvements in some very difficult estates through the twin process of devolving responsibility for essential management functions to the estate, rather than doing everything through the town hall, and involving residents as fully as possible in the running of estates.
I am convinced that, in improving the environment, the neighbourhood and community safety, it is critical to use the active citizens who are to be found on all of our estates as much as possible. That is why my Department is impressed by what has been achieved and has mounted its own study into the effects of the approach I have mentioned on the level of vandalism on a sample of estates.
I am delighted that the Department of the Environment in particular can give such formidable help to a number of local schemes around the country, in terms of additional finance, and that the Estates Action programme run by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is contributing so much to, for example, the arrangements to put caretakers into blocks of flats so that they may be properly guarded and secure, with entry and exit made fast.
That has greatly turned around a number of high-rise blocks and estates which were hitherto very rundown. A recent pilot scheme in west London showed what can be achieved. It involved a typical, system-built block of flats, of the kind which can, I know, be found in my hon. Friend's constituency too, which suffered high levels of vandalism and other crime.
The experiment was terribly simple but very effective. Two receptionists were installed. I greatly prefer the term "receptionists", which is a good English phrase, to "concierge"; I do not see why we should use "concierge" in our housing language. Those two receptionists working in shifts and operated a controlled scheme, monitoring those entering and leaving the block. It sounds simple but it was astoundingly effective. They also ran errands for the elderly living in the block and made sure that the lifts worked properly.
As a result, vandalism there went right down, there were no personal attacks during the period of the experiment and there was only one burglary. That experiment has been linked to high levels of crime in blocks of flats not very far away. I have seen a similar scheme operate in Wolverhampton, where the crime rate in the block concerned was cut, but when I walked into other tower blocks in the area I was surrounded by residents screaming, "When are you going to do something about it?"
That is not to say that under certain circumstances the security patrols suggested by my hon. Friend cannnot be of use. I am advised that they are being tried out in some of our midlands cities such as Nottingham, where they have been effective. One wants to go step by step, trying to do all that one can through neighbourhood watch, which I believe has enormous untapped potential, and through the introduction of receptionists, caretakers and intensive management. If necessary, perhaps one can then introduce patrols—but that must be a matter for local decison. In that way, substantial sums of money can be saved. In the case of the one block of flats I mentioned, in Brent, west London, there was an estimated net saving of £17,000 because vandalism, graffiti and other gratuitous damage were reduced. There are considerable lessons for local authorities to learn from that experiment.
Ultimately, the local community must take responsibility. I would dearly like to see in Southampton, and in other areas suffering from similar problems, the local communities themselves, with the encouragement of all involved, banding together to defeat these problems. One should not be afraid, from time to time, of looking back to practices 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when there was greater social control and more people prepared to say, "Oi! Don't do that!" when someone—perhaps a very young child—was about to cause trouble. Perhaps one of the keys for our

great housing estates, such as those in Southampton, would be for people—be they patrols, receptionists, caretakers, community policemen or community leaders involved in neighbourhood watch to say, "Oi! Don't do that." In that form of social control, which is not a case of people being nosey parkers but of being good neighbours to one another, we are likely to find some of the roots of a successsful anti-crime drive in this country.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.